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

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2020, Pages 123-146

  Zhang, Xin ^a   McEneaney, John E ^b  

^a GUIZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

5 College university; Academic Literacy Literacies; ANOVAs; Constructivism; English as a Foreign Language; Instructional Strategies, methods, materials; Instructional strategies; methods and materials; Language learners; Multiple Regression Analysis; Social Constructivism; Vygotskian; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 85067677347     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.259     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P.D., & Paris, S.G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
2. Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153
3. Barrett, P. (2001). Assessing the reliability of rating data. Retrieved from https://www.pbarrett.net/presentations/rater.pdf
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(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
5. Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”. College English, 46(7), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/376924
6. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
8. Cook, V. (2016). Second language learning and language teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
9. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222
10. De Guerrero, M.C.M., & Villamil, O.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
11. Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2015). Assessor or assessee? Investigating the differential effects of online peer assessment roles in the development of students’ problem-solving skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.056
12. Diab, N.M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
13. Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
14. Farris, C. (1987). Current composition: Beyond process vs. product. English Journal, 76(6), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/818051
15. Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Stine, M.E.A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706
16. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
18. Ge, Z. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7
19. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: A multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12096
20. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
21. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R.B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
23. Ho, M.C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.495
24. Ho, R. (2013). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with IBM SPSS (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: CRC.
25. Horowitz, R. (2007). Creating discourse and mind: How talk, text, and meaning evolve. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Talking texts: How speech and writing interact in school learning (pp. 3–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Horowitz, R. (2017). Advancing research on speaking and writing: Pedagogical possibilities. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33843
27. Horowitz, R., & Wilburn, M. (2017). Creating a macrostructure in academic writing: Contributions of tutor–tutee interaction when performing a text revision. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(4), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1255578
28. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa
29. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
30. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Jin, Y., & Fan, J. (2011). Test for English Majors (TEM) in China. Language Testing, 28(4), 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211414852
32. Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12–39. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v23i2.53
33. Kellogg, R.T., Whiteford, A.P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Does automated feedback help students learn to write? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.2.c
34. Keselman, H.J., Huberty, C.J., Lix, L.M., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R.A., Donahue, B., … Levin, J.R. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 350–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003350
35. Kim, M. (2005). The effects of the assessor and assessee's roles on preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness, performance, and attitude in a technology-related design task (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu%3A181253
36. Kostouli, T., & Stylianou, M. (2017). Drawing from, reworking, and contesting classroom meanings: Repetition as a voicing tool in 6th grade students’ argumentative texts. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(1), 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.28853
37. Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
38. Lee, G., & Schallert, D.L. (2008a). Constructing trust between teacher and students through feedback and revision cycles in an EFL writing classroom. Written Communication, 25(4), 506–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308322301
39. Lee, G., & Schallert, D.L. (2008b). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.002
40. Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.153
41. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A.L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
42. Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee's roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01180.x
43. Liang, M. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45–64.
44. Liu, J., & Hansen, J.G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45. 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(3), 193–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
46. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x
47. 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
48. Ma, J. (2010). Chinese EFL learners’ decision-making while evaluating peers’ texts. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119221
49. Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
50. Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
51. Min, H. (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
52. Montgomery, J.L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
53. Moore, L.K. (1986). Teaching students how to evaluate writing. TESOL Newsletter, 20(5), 23–24.
54. Mulder, R.A., Pearce, J.M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527391
55. Nicol, D.J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
56. Pae, T.-I. (2019). A simultaneous analysis of relations between L1 and L2 skills in reading and writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.216
57. Paris, S.G., & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
58. Posten, H.O. (1984). Robustness of the two-sample t-test. In D. Rasch & M.L. Tiku (Eds.), Robustness of statistical methods and nonparametric statistics (pp. 92–99). Dordrecht, Germany: Reidel.
59. Prins, F.J., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., & Kirschner, P.A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-3250-z
60. Ramsey, P.H. (1980). Exact Type 1 error rates for robustness of student's t test with unequal variances. Journal of Educational Statistics, 5(4), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986005004337
61. Ren, H.W., & Hu, G.W. (2012). Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers. English Australia Journal, 27(2), 3–16.
62. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
63. Rosenblatt, L.M. (2013). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 923–956). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (Reprinted from Theoretical models and processes of reading, 6th ed., pp. 923–956, by R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer, Eds., 1994, Newark, DE: International Reading Association)
64. Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
65. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
66. Shaoqian, L., & Jian, H. (2013, November). Re-examining formative assessment in ESL classrooms in China. Paper presented at the New Directions English: Language Assessment in China conference, Beijing, China.
67. Simpson, G., & Clifton, J. (2016). Assessing postgraduate student perceptions and measures of learning in a peer review feedback process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1026874
68. Sluijsmans, D.M.A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009311
69. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90004-9
70. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
71. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
72. Topping, K.J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
73. Topping, K.J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
74. Topping, K.J., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428
75. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009
76. Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2014). Focusing on content: Discourse in L2 peer review groups. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 698–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.126
77. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
78. Wells, C.G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
79. 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(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
80. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586792
81. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773
82. Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1
83. Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002
84. Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068
85. Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088395012004004