Investigating the Effectiveness of Web-Based Peer Review in Students’ Drafts Revision: A Critical EAP Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.11Keywords:
peer review, corpus linguistics, EAP, critical thinking, written discourse competenceAbstract
Previous research on peer review considered it as a strategy of improving students’ writing (Baker, 2016; Hu, 2005). To investigate its effectiveness, this research has established a small corpus based on the data from the 22 students’ writing drafts and their corresponding written comments of 13,9261 words in total on the Peerceptiv National Writing and Feedback Contest (PNWFC). Then, Python was utilized as a tool to calculate the difference between four dimensions including accuracy, helpfulness, reviewing and writing. According to the quantitative analysis, it showed that students could hardly benefit from peer feedback. After that, three online structured interviews were arranged to further explore the development of English as a Second Language (L2) students’ discourse competence development. Given the consequence of qualitative data, students could revise their grammatical errors and language inaccuracies through peer review. They might implicitly develop their ability to think critically, which is the core of the formation of discoursal awareness in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course. More importantly, receivers could know of their weaknesses, and also perceive the accuracy and fairness of their discourses. Finally, essential implications might be helpful for teachers to carry out peer review and writing tasks in the future.
References
Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berggren, J. (2014). Learning from giving feedback: a study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 69(1), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036
Berndt, M., Strijbos, JW. & Fischer, F. (2018). Effects of written peer-feedback content and sender’s competence on perceptions, performance, and mindful cognitive processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0343-z
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310633029X
Bitchener, J., Young, S. and Cameron, D., (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), pp.191-205.
Bruce, I. (2016). Theory and Concepts of English for Academic Purposes. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.
Bruffee, K. A. (1980). A Short Course in Writing. Practical Rhetoric for Composition Courses, Writing Workshops, and Tutor Training Programs. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-28). London, UK: Longman.
Chandler, J., (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), pp.267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Chang, C. (2016). Two Decades of Research in L2 Peer Review. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 81-117. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.03
Cho, Y., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Chomsky, N. (1965). Persistent Topics in Linguistic Theory. Diogenes, 13(51), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219216501305102
Council of Europe. (2022). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale
Ding, A., & Bruce, I. (2017) The English for Academic Purposes Practitioner. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59737-9
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co- assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775
Gao, Y., Schunn, C., & Yu, Q. (2018). The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 44(2), 294-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language teaching research, 9(3), 321-342.
Hu, G. (2019). Culture and Peer Feedback. Feedback in Second Language Writing. (1st ed., pp. 45-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.005
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of Cultural Appropriateness and Pedagogical Efficacy: Exploring Peer Review in a Second Language Writing Class. Instructional Science, 38 (4), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1
Huisman, B., Saab, N., Driel, J., & Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), pp.133-151. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), pp.148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing. Language Teaching, 39 (2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Hyland, K., Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Januin, J., & Stephen, J. (2015). Exploring Discourse Competence Elements in EAP Class Presentations through Document and Ethnographic Analyses. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 208, 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.192
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lam, S. (2021). A web-based feedback platform for peer and teacher feedback on writing: An Activity Theory perspective. Computers and Composition, 62, 102666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102666
Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2009). An investigation into effectiveness of peer feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79-87.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, (3), 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer Stances and Writer Perceptions in EFL Peer Review Training. English for Specific Purposes, 27 (3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002
Nilson, L. (2003). Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596408
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
Santos, T. (1992). Ideology in composition: L1 and ESL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 1–15.
Storch, N., 2005. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), pp. https:153-173. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9
Tuzi, Frank. (2004). The impact of feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235.
Walker, M. (2014). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 40(2), 232-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.898737
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016b). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005-2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161
Zhang, F., Schunn, C., Li, W., & Long, M. (2020) Changes in the reliability and validity of peer assessment across the college years. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45 (8), 1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724260
Zhang, L., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the Learning Process of Peer Feedback Activity: An Ethnographic Study of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching Research, 16 (1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811426248
