Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

Vorobel, Oksana; Kim, Deoksoon

doi:10.1002/tesj.126

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, we emphasize that instructional interventions must rely on a well-designed feedback process. To ensure the quality of peer review, we applied a two-step (Vorobel & Kim, 2014) feedback design that began with L1 oral comments, followed by L2 written feedback. The first step in L1 led to a larger quantity of comments in which the native language helped maximize students' understanding (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000;Kamimura, 2006;Zhao, 2010).…”

Section: Conclusion and Closing Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Influence of Peer Feedback and Author Response on Chinese University Students’ English Writing Performance?

Zhang

McEneaney

2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhancing writing pedagogy in university‐based courses for students of English as a foreign language has been a long‐term goal of educators and researchers. Most recent work, however, has relied on qualitative methodologies that limit our capacity to generalize findings. In this quantitative study, the authors adopted a quasi‐experimental control group design to investigate effects of peer feedback and author response on university students’ writing performance in a context of English as a foreign language. A total of 198 sophomores majoring in English took part in a 15‐week research study. The authors conducted a repeated‐measures analysis of covariance to examine the effects of a traditional teacher feedback instructional group compared with an experimental peer feedback group. Results showed that the peer feedback group showed a significantly greater writing performance gain than the traditional teacher feedback group. Furthermore, follow‐up analyses focusing on the experimental group that relied on a series of multiple regressions showed that both the quality of students’ feedback and the quality of their author responses were significant and stable predictors of students’ writing performance. Results also showed that the quality of students’ author responses had a slightly larger impact on writing performance than the quality of students’ feedback. This study provides clear evidence of the power of formative peer feedback as an approach to support learning that both empowers students and addresses widely cited problems that arise when the instructor is the only source of feedback in a writing course.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Closing Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Influence of Peer Feedback and Author Response on Chinese University Students’ English Writing Performance?

Zhang

McEneaney

2019

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Once again, for these studies focusing on CAPR, we identified the mode of peer feedback exchanges based on the technological tools used: synchronous, asynchronous, or a combination of synchronous and asynchronous CAPR. Out of the 37 reviewed studies, 15 previous studies focused on FFPR only (Stanley, 1992;Beason, 1993;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Lockhart & Ng, 1995;Zhu, 1995;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997;De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000;Zhu, 2001;Min, 2005;Cho & Cho, 2011;Lina & Samuel, 2013;Vorobel & Kim, 2014;Hanjani & Li, 2014). On the other hand, an equal number of studies (N = 15) concentrated on CAPR only (Tuzi, 2004;Hewett, 2006;Guardado & Shi, 2007;Liang, 2008Liang, , 2010Liou & Peng, 2009;Ho & Usaha, 2009;Anderson, Bergman, Bradley, Gustafsson, & Matzke, 2010;Cha & Park, 2010;Ho, 2010;Ho & Usaha, 2013;Bradley, 2014;Razak & Saeed, 2014;Pham & Usaha, 2015;Saeed & Ghazali, 2016).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding this, five studies identified the focus areas of revision-oriented feedback in FFPR as in Table 3. Four of these studies (Beason, 1993;Lockhart & Ng, 1995;Min, 2005;Vorobel & Kim, 2014) indicated that peer feedback focused on issues of writing at the macro-level, such as idea development, organization and purpose more than issues at the micro level, such as mechanics and grammar. On the other hand, Hanjani and Li (2014) reported that most of EFL learners' interactional exchanges focused on micro-level issues such as grammar, while a few comments focused on macro-level issues such as content and organization.…”

Section: The Focus Areas Of Interactional Feedback Exchanges In Peer mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, most of the studies reviewed in this paper (N = 26) have been conducted among ESL learners (Stanley, 1992;Beason, 1993;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Lockhart & Ng, 1995;Zhu, 1995;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Sullivan & Pratt, 1996;Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997;De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000;Di Giovanni & Nagaswami, 2001;Zhu, 2001;Liu & Sadler, 2003;Tuzi, 2004;Hewett, 2006;Jones et al, 2006;Guardado & Shi, 2007;Ho & Usaha, 2009;Anderson et al, 2010;Ho, 2010;Cho & Cho, 2011;Ho & Usaha, 2013;Lina & Samuel, 2013;Vorobel & Kim, 2014;Bradley, 2014;Pham & Usaha, 2015). On the other hand, the remaining number of reviewed studies (N = 11) focused on EFL learners (Min, 2005;Liang, 2008Liang, , 2010Liou & Peng, 2009;Song & Usaha, 2009;Cha & Park, 2010;Chang, 2012;Hanjani & Li, 2014;Razak & Saeed, 2014;Ho, 2015;Saeed & Ghazali, 2016).…”

Section: Other Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Saeed

Ghazali

Aljaberi

2018

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a review of previous studies on learners' interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face peer review (FFPR) and computer-assisted peer review (CAPR) of English as Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) writing. The review attempted to (1) identify the patterns of interactional feedback, (2) search an empirical evidence of learners' incorporation of peer interactional feedback in their text revisions and (3) identify the factors affecting learners' interactional feedback as reported in these previous studies. To achieve this, a search of previous studies on peer review in writing from 1990 to 2016 was conducted. However, only 37 out of 58 peer reviewed studies were extensively reviewed and systematically analyzed by two independent coders. The findings showed that in terms of the language functions, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are categorized as (1) exploratory (showing learners' reflection and interpretation of the task), (2) procedural (showing how learners handle the task of revising their texts) and (3) social (showing how learners maintain good relationships). In relation to the nature and focus areas, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are revision-oriented (targeting problems or errors in written texts) and non-revision-oriented (do not target any problems). Results of some previous reviewed studies also provided evidence of learners' integration of peer feedback into their text revisions. However, peer interactional feedback is affected by several factors: training learners on feedback, mode of peer review, type of written tasks, learners' roles in peer review activties, learners' proficiency in English and other factors, including learners' gender differences and configuration of peer review dyads as well as context of peer review. Synthesizing the findings of the reviewed studies, we proposed a dual space-interactional feedback model that comprises the learning space and the social space of interactional feedback in peer review. Several pedagogical, research and technological implications were also drawn from the major findings. Future researchers should pay attention to both spaces of interactional feedback and identify further factors affecting interactional feedback in peer review.

show abstract

“…Pritchard and Morrow (2017) refer to social benefits of FFPR as students deal with non-threatening audience which has similar characteristics like them, they receive comments immediately in a direct way, the act of exchanging peer comments can be exciting because it reduces the writing apprehension, motivation for writing increases as students assume the process as something collaborative, and the interpersonal communication and sense of cooperation are developed. Some studies only examined the differential effects of FFPR (Cho & Cho, 2011;Hanjani & Li, 2014;Min, 2005;Vorobel & Kim, 2014), whereas some other studies have compared FFPR with computermediated peer review (CMPR) (Chang, 2012;Ho, 2015;Liu & Sadler, 2003;Rouhshad, Wigglesworth, & Storch, 2016;Yilmaz, 2012) and argued that the difference in the mode of interaction has affected the number, area, nature, and type of peer comments as well as students' revision skills and writing performance.…”

Section: Face-to-face Peer Review (Ffpr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Farahani¹,

Nemati²,

Montazer³

2019

Lang Test Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the distribution of peer review in face-to-face and mobilemediated peer review groups and their effects on students' revision skills and academic writing development. Seventy-two first-year English for academic purposes (EAP) students participated in an 18-session IELTS academic writing course in a Canadian university the mobile-mediated peer review group (MMPR) used Telegram to exchange peer comments synchronously, while the face-to-face peer review group (FFPR) did peer review in the classroom. An adapted analytic scheme (Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227, 2003) and the IELTS academic writing assessment criteria were used to conceptualize the peer comments in terms of frequency, area, type, nature, and IELTS assessment categories. Results indicated that the total number of comments, the percentage of revision-oriented comments and actual revisions made by the MMPR group were statistically more significant than those by the FFPR group. Furthermore, the MMPR group made more local revisionoriented comments than that of FFPR. However, the revision-oriented suggestion in local areas was the most distributed type of comment made by both groups. Regarding the IELTS assessment criteria, the FFPR group made more comments on task achievement and coherence and cohesion, whereas the comments made by the MMPR group targeted more lexical resources, and grammatical range and accuracy. In addition, the results showed that both MMPR and FFPR groups developed their IELTS academic writing skills while the MMPR mode of collaboration outperformed the FFPR.

show abstract

Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

Cited by 7 publications

References 40 publications

What Is the Influence of Peer Feedback and Author Response on Chinese University Students’ English Writing Performance?

What Is the Influence of Peer Feedback and Author Response on Chinese University Students’ English Writing Performance?

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About