Is peer response effective in teaching writing?

Abstract:This paper aims to examine whether peer response is effective in ESL/EFL writing to provide a theoretical foundation as well as some adaptable suggestions from teachers/researchers to enhance peer response activities in teaching context. Firstly, the literature review is conducted, exploring research addressing characteristics of peer response and relationship among peer response and student attitude, student revision and writing quality improvement. Secondly, pedagogical implications (implementation of peer response) are demonstrated.

Key words:peer response effective ESL/EFL writing

Introduction

Since the late 1980s, peer response to writing has gained increasing attention in language teaching (Ferris, 2003). The interest in peer response is reflected in the numerous journal publications as well as books and conference presentations devoted to the topic (e.g. Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Zhang, 1999; Berg,1999; Paulus, 1999; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Ferris, 2003; Hansen & Liu, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). According to these researchers, peer response is an important activity allowing writing students to receive more feedback on their papers and to practice skills vital to the development of language and writing abilities. However, English teachers in my teaching context still suffer from the tedious and unrewarding chore of correcting students' written drafts. In addition, constraints resulting from the number of students in each class and examination-focused program lead to limited provision of teacher feedback (Miao et al., 2006). Therefore, this paper examines whether peer response is effective in ESL/EFL writing to provide a theoretical foundation as well as some adaptable suggestions from teachers/researchers to enhance peer response activities in my teaching context. Firstly, the literature review is conducted, exploring research addressing characteristics of peer response and relationship among peer response and student attitude, student revision and writing quality improvement. Secondly, pedagogical implications (implementation of peer response) are demonstrated.

Literature review

Peer response is the use of learners as "sources of information and interactants for each other" for commenting on and critiquing each other's drafts in the process of writing (Liu & Hansen, 2002). Peer response (also named peer review, peer feedback, peer editing and peer critiquing) is an important collaborative activity which engages students in reading, critiquing and providing feedback on each other's writing, both to obtain immediate textual improvement and to develop stronger writing competence by means of meaningful interaction and scaffolding (Hansen & Liu, 2005; Hu, 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Tsui and Ng, 2000; Zhu, 2001a; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996 ). Peer response is regarded as an important support for the drafting and redrafting of process approaches to writing instruction (Paulus, 1999; Zamel, 1985). Strong justification for the use of peer response is found in four theoretical stances: process writing, collaborative learning, Vygotsky's learning theory and interactionist theory of second language acquisition (SLA) (Liu & Hansen, 2002).

Peer response is supported by the process approach which views writing as a dynamic and recursive process rather than a product-oriented activity (Liu & Hansen, 2002). It is also supported by collaborative learning theory (Bruffee, 1984a), which believes that peer work enables students to collect and share their knowledge or resources available to complete tasks they cannot do individually through dialogue and interaction with each other (Hirvela,1999). Support for peer response also comes from Vygotsky's theory (1978), which deems learning is a cognitive activity that takes place in social interaction, through mutual peers' scaffolding (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Villamil & Guerrero,1996 ). Interactionist perspectives offer another important theoretical support for peer response by suggesting how negotiation of meaning and correcting errors through group work enhances more effective SLA (Long & Porter, 1985).

Some researchers have found peer response comments can lead to meaningful revision (e.g. Paulus, 1999) and promote language acquisition (Long & Porter1985; Miao et al., 2006; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1998) while others bear the opposite perception (e.g. Connor and Asenavage, 1994). Among the numerous amounts of research, the findings of the effects of peer response have been mixed and even conflicting (Ferris, 2003). When the effects of peer feedback are evaluated, some crucial issues need to be taken into consideration, including the characteristics of peer review, the effects of peer review on student attitude, on student revision and improvement in writing quality.

The above researchers provide concrete theoretical backgrounds for further research on peer review. In the following section, characteristics of peer response and relationship among peer response and student attitude, student revision and writing quality improvement will be explored.

Research on the characteristics of peer response

Characteristics of peer review is the first influential issue to consider when evaluating effects of peer review to writing, with several sub-categories such as issues students talk about and linguistic choices they make, stances they take in relating to peers about their writing and roles of individuals within dyads or writing groups (Ferris, 2003).

The issues students talk about and linguistic choices they make are two important aspects in peer work. Some researchers assert that students can provide very useful feedback that deals with content, rhetoric and linguistic knowledge (Berg, 1999; Mendon a & Johnson, 1994; Nelson and Murphy, 1992; Paulus, 1999; Stanley, 1992). This is well demonstrated in Mendon a & Johnson's (1994) study that students actively ask questions for both information and comprehension checks, give suggestions and correct grammar mistakes collaboratively. Comments from peer response groups can be a fruitful environment for students to negotiate meaning and practice a wide range of language skills that are necessary for their development not only as L2 writers, but also for the development of all four language skills in a collaborative environment (Paulus, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). However, some researchers discover a tendency among L2 students to neglect macro textual issues but focus on surface language concerns in their peer review (Nelson and Murphy, 1992; 1993). Even when students are concerned with larger issues involving content, organization and idea development in peer response, they tend to provide vague and unhelpful comments, which lead them far away from the expectations of their teacher (Liu and Sadler, 2003).

The differentiate stances students take in relating to peer about their writing is another issue deserving consideration in peer response. According to researchers, some student writers are collaborative peer reviewers (Villamil & Guerrero, 1996). Some peer readers are hostile, sarcastic, over critical, or unkind in their criticisms of their peers' writing and their nature of responding to peers' drafts sometimes generates a sense of discomfort and uneasiness among the participants (Nelson and Murphy, 1992). Some are defensive student writers and fear being ridiculed by their peer reviewers for language problems (Nelson and Carson, 1998) while others are uncertain about the validity of their classmates' response due to the reviewers' lack of L2 rhetorical schemata or inappropriate expectations about the content and structure of peers' texts (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Nelson & Murphy, 1993). When writers interacted with their peers in a cooperative manner, they are more likely to use peers' suggestions in revision. When participants are defensive, uncooperative, and distrustful to each other, or primarily trying to avoid conflict, there may be little collaboration and production in peer work (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Nelson & Murphy, 1992, 1993; Rollinson, 2005).

Research on the effects of peer response on student attitudes

Peer work may have a great impact on student attitudes (Berg, 1999). Many researchers affirm that peer comments may enhance a sense of audience (Jacbos et al., 1998; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Mendon a and Johnson, 1994), contribute to learner autonomy (Miao et al., 2006; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Villamil and de Guerrero, 1998), productive attitudes toward writing (Stanley, 1992) and awareness of revision strategies (Hu, 2005). In addition, some researchers contend that peer work enables students to assume a more active role in the learning process, realize their own strengths and weaknesses, explore effective ways of expressing meaning, practice a wide range of language and writing skills (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Liu and Hansen, 2002; Liu and Sadler, 2003; Mendon a and Johnson, 1994; Nelson and Carson, 1998; Zhu, 2001).

Research on the effects of peer response to student revision and outcomes

The potential benefits of peer review for writing development can be classified into two subcategories, depending on whether they contribute to students' general, long-term development as second/foreign language writers or to improve the quality of a student text, which is a short-term improvement (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Hu, 2005).

Some studies demonstrate that a large proportion of peer response can be incorporated in revisions and thus generate valid revisions.However, some unique characteristics in two of the above studies that should be mentioned. In Mendon a and Johnson's (1994) study, the findings from 12 advanced international graduate students interacting with their knowledgeable peers on papers of their major field cannot be generalized in other language proficiency levels. In Nelson and Murphy's (1993) study, the conclusion based on only 4 participants' interaction may also be limited within the scope of the study.

Some researcher argues that the impact of peer feedback on student revision is disappointing and extremely limited (e.g. 5% of student revisions derive from peer feedback in Connor & Asenavage's study, 1994). The finding of Connor and Asenavage's (1994) probably results from the three existing constrains of the target context including insufficient explicit instruction on revision, inadequate prior peer response training and lacking of hard photocopies of peers' papers when the students respond to their peers' drafts. Other than these issues, only eight international students participated in their study. Consequently, the findings probably may not be generalized beyond their research context. Connor and Asenavage's (1994) study did not examine how many of the teacher and peer comments influenced changes, nor did they determine whether the third drafts improved in quality over the initial drafts as results of the feedback and revision process.

Despite of the minor objections, the majority of empirical research indicates that suggestions derived from peer feedback have generally positive effects on student revision, which ultimately result in improvement of text quality and writing ability (Berg, 1999; Miao et al., 2006; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1998). The issues students talk about, linguistic choices they make, stances they take in relating to peer about their writing and roles individuals take on within dyads or writing groups may have a great impact on peer response, student attitude, student revision and the improvement of writing ability.

Pedagogical implications

Even assuming that peer feedback is effective, we need to ensure that peer review is conducted in an effective way, which means training students for peer response (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Ferris, 2003). Many researchers maintain that students who are trained are more engaged in active interaction and negotiation and that training promotes more meaning-based suggestions resulting in higher quality revisions and ultimately lead to better quality writing (e.g. Berg, 1999; Ferris, 2003; Min, 2005). Training is also likely to benefit student reviewers themselves because they may view their own texts from a reader's perspective (F. Hyland, 2003). Furthermore, if students are expected to skillfully participate in peer response and utilize peer suggestions more frequently to their texts, it appears reasonable that they need to be given the opportunity to learn how (Berg, 1999; Ferris, 2003; Stanley, 1992).

Awareness- raising is an important step towards ensuring that students develop appropriate attitudes towards the pedagogical activity as well as enhance productive behaviors (e.g. Berg, 1999; Ferris, 2003; Paulus, 1999; Stanley,1992), particularly necessary for students from some Asian countries (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Nelson and Carson, 1998). Thus, it is important for teachers to acknowledge and address the benefits of peer review at the beginning of the writing course (Ferris, 2003).

Preparing students carefully for peer work is also vital and may have different meanings in different contexts (Ferris, 2003). In my teaching context, it should comprise a thorough understanding of the problems students may encounter during peer review (Min, 2005) as well as explicit instruction of specific areas and certain response skills including clarifying writers' intentions, identifying problems, explaining the nature of problems, and making suggestions by giving specific examples and modeling (Berg, 1999; Min, 2005, Stanley, 1992).

Forming dyads or writing groups carefully before implementation of peer review is another crucial implication, among which ideal group size and language ability levels of group members have been explored by many researchers (e.g. Rollinson, 2005; Min, 2005). In terms of group size, either paired peers or groups of not more than 4 students as "pairs of students have greater opportunities for intensive discussion about their writing" (Min, 2005, p.296) and "is preferred by most EFL students" (Paulus, 1999, p.272) while the reason for groups of not more than four results from limited time reason (Ferris, 2003). With respect to language proficiency of group members, a mixed language proficiency group may be preferred in my teaching context, low proficiency students may benefit from constant reading the texts written by their more proficient peers while the high proficiency students may profit from critical thinking to give effective feedback to their less able peers (Ferris, 2003).

Teacher's appropriate monitoring is necessary because it guarantees for successful peer response (Ferris, 2003). This may be traced back in Berg's (1999) study, in which she relates that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful revision. Writing teachers may participate in the peer response activities as a peer or just be available to answer questions, offer guidance and support when necessary (Liu & Hansen, 2002) and they may also watch students' behavior in activities and do on-the-spot assessment of how well students are handling the peer feedback task (Ferris, 2003).

Conclusion

This paper has deepened the understanding of the important role of peer response in teaching writing. Meanwhile, it also shed light on issues that are influential to effective peer response. The foregoing research studies provide concrete and qualitative supporting materials that suggested that peer response is effective in improving text quality as well as students' writing ability. In addition, valid instruction for training students to acquire necessary responding skills and basic knowledge to provide efficient response is also discussed. Although the research in this paper represents only a small proportion of the overall research, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that peer work is effective and contributes to teaching writing.Raising students' awareness of and preparing them for effective peer response, careful consideration of forming dyads or writing groups as well as appropriate monitoring are vital to guarantee the effectiveness of peer activity. In order to maximize effects of peer review in improving writing proficiency to the highest degree, further research will be needed on personal features and effects of culture factors in peer response. Research on these issues would promote our understanding of language learning and deepen our insight into the correlation of peer review and writing proficiency.

References:

[1]Carson, J. & Nelson, G. Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1996.

[2]Ferris, D.. Response to student writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2003.

[3]Hansen, J. G. & Liu, J. Guiding principle for effective peer response. ELT Journal,2005,(59):31-38.

[4]Hu, G. Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research,(2005,9(3):321-342.

[5]Hyland, F.. Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 2003,31(2):217230.

[6]Hyland, K. & Hyland, F.. Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 2006,39(2):83-101.