Preparing English Learners for Effective Peer Review in the Writers' Workshop

Abstract

"I feel that the student who diagnosed my essay, focus too much on grammar and give me few suggest on content. I think even Microsoft Word can do the similar grammar suggestion too." -Eunju (pseudonym) , English learner, reflection on peer review session M any teachers know from experience how easily peer review during writers' workshops can become a pointless, time-consuming activity when carried out without careful student training. Having English learners (ELs) from diverse backgrounds who are in the process of developing their language skills can make it even more challenging for teachers to facilitate peer review. Both research and practice suggest that ELs from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds may have little prior experience with peer review and a lack of confidence in their English proficiency, which are factors that can hinder them from fully enjoying the benefits of peer review (e.g., Rollinson, 2005 ). This article provides teachers with strategies for effectively implementing peer review training and posttraining activities during writers' workshops in order to amplify the positive effects of peer review and more actively engage ELs in the peer review process. Writing: A Recursive ProcessWriting processes are dynamic, nonlinear, and exploratory, and writers are able to generate ideas and discover meaning through these recursive processes. In the classroom setting, these writing processes usually involve multiple back-and-forth teacher and peer intervention (Liu & Hansen, 2002 ). The writers' workshop is one way teachers help student writers understand the nature of the complex and recursive processes of writing. The goal of these Soo Hyon Kim is an assistant professor of English at

Measuring Peer Feedback on Writing Class: A Study on Third-Semester Pre-Service English Teachers

“…To eliminate these weaknesses, the peer feedback might be regularly well-practiced and increasingly used it in instructional settings, beyond the specific focus on the collaborative writing's feedback (Nelson & Schunn, 2009). Thus, the greatest advantage of receiving peer feedback, according to Kim (2015), is that students continually increase their understanding of how their written works are readable and acceptable from the reader's viewpoint.…”

Supporting the Argumentative Writing of Students in Linguistically Diverse Classrooms: An Action Research Study

“…Readers, on the other hand, develop skills in critically evaluating the written work (e.g., learning how to identify sections that need clarification or elaboration). The peer review process thus develops analytic and critical thinking skills (Graves, Juel, Graves, & Dewitz, 2011;Kim, 2015;Philippakos, 2017;Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016). Peer reviewing is also motivational.…”

“…Teachers can facilitate active engagement of ELLs during writing instruction through carefully planned peer review training sessions (Kim, 2015).…”

Merging the E-journaling and the Workshop Methods to Reduce Prep-Year Students’ Writing Apprehension: An Experimental Study

“…Creating student-centered environs that promoted autonomy and collaborative learning, -e.g. group editing, e-journaling, and publishing‖ (Aly, 2002;Kim, 2015;Arju, 2019).…”