Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class

Instructional Science

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 371-394

  Hu, Guangwei ^a   Lam, Sandra Tsui Eu ^b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

Author keywords

Chinese ESL learners; Feedback on student writing; Peer review; Process oriented writing instruction; Revision in second language writing; Second language academic writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953958674     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28.
2. Amores, M. (1997). A new perspective on peer editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 513-523.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching second-language writing: Interacting with text. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188. doi: 10. 2307/3587209.
9. Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revisions. RELC Journal, I5(2), 1-14. doi: 10. 1177/003368828401500201.
10. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Curtis, A. (2001). Hong Kong student teachers' responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 129-143.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.
20. Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal, 52, 323-329. doi: 10. 1093/elt/52. 4. 323.
21. Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
22. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31-38. doi: 10. 1093/elt/cci004.
23. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Essex, England: Pearson Education.
24. 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.
25. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. 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.
27. Hu, G. W. (2005a). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321-342. doi: 10. 1191/1362168805lr169oa.
28. Hu, G. W. (2005b). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107, 654-705.
29. Hu, G. W. (2005c). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635-660.
30. Hu, G. W. (2006). Training Chinese ESL students for effective peer review. Asian Englishes, 8(2), 64-77.
31. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33-54.
32. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101. doi: 10. 1017/S0261444806003399.
33. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. 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.
39. Leki, I. (1990b). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-19.
40. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
41. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
42. 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.
43. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5(1), 17-29.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308. doi: 10. 1016/j. system. 2004. 11. 003.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992b). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 23-26.
56. 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.
57. O'Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1-28. doi: 10. 1017/S0261444804002113.
58. 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.
59. Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55, 38-46. doi: 10. 1093/elt/55. 1. 38.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23-30. doi: 10. 1093/elt/cci003.
63. Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: 'I am not the teacher'. ELT Journal, 52, 19-28. doi: 10. 1093/elt/52. 1. 19.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492-528. doi: 10. 1177/0741088395012004004.
79. 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.