Abstract
This study reported how ten Taiwanese Master’s students perceived their experiences of receiving feedback given by their peers and writing consultants to revise a shortened version of their thesis proposals. Collected over the course of one semester, data included students’ writing portfolios and interviews with them. Analysis of the data revealed three major themes: (1) The participants felt quite positive about providing and receiving peer feedback, although they seemed cautious toward language-related peer comments; (2) they generally had positive experience with the writing consultants, although the perceived usefulness of the consultants’ feedback varied with individual consultants and (3) the two types of comments served different functions for students, and questions arose from the peer editing process could serve as prompts for writing consultation sessions. Possible future research directions as well as pedagogical implication are outlined to conclude the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The writing consultants are Ms. Kensington, Ms. Davidson, Mr. Smith, Ms. Lin, Ms. Chen, Ms. Cheng, Ms. Su, and Ms. Chang. The first three teachers are native speakers of English.
References
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.
Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–179.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31–38.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching & Learning, 26, 49–67.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
Murphy, C., & Law, J. (1995). Introduction. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing centers (pp. xi–xv). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). The basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 209–233.
Thompson, I. (2009). Scaffolding in the writing center: A microanalysis of an experienced tutor’s verbal and nonverbal tutoring strategies. Written Communication, 26, 417–453.
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”? Assessing Writing, 8, 110–134.
Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227–242.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
Weigle, S. C., & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 203–225.
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173–201.
Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writer. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 165–172.
Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 321–326.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the National Science Council of Taiwan for sponsoring this study (NSC-98-2410-H-009-002). My gratitude also goes to the reviewers and editor, my research assistant Jay Peng, and my participants.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
See Table 1.
Appendix 2: Peer feedback sheet
-
1.
What are the main strengths of this paper?
-
2.
Are there consistent grammatical errors and stylistic problems? Please list them.
-
3.
What is unclear to you in the paper? In your opinion, what should be changed, deleted, added, or restated? Please offer concrete suggestions.
-
4.
What most impressed you about the paper?
-
5.
Other comments on helping your peer improve his/her draft
Appendix 3
See Table 2.
Appendix 4
See Table 3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, C.Wy. Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 11, 151–158 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9081-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9081-5