Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on a study designed to investigate (a) whether peer review is an effective pedagogical activity with adult Chinese students in the teaching of second language (L2) academic writing and (b) how factors such as perceptions of the influence of peer reviewers’ L2 proficiency, previous experience with peer review, feedback preferences, and culturally-based beliefs and practices relate to the effectiveness of the pedagogical activity. Participants were 20 English-as-an-L2 learners from China who were enrolled in an academic writing class for postgraduate students at a Singaporean university. Data included first drafts of an academic writing assignment, written peer comments, revised drafts of the assignment, responses to a questionnaire, and interviews. Quantitative analyses of the peer comments and revisions to the drafts show that significant improvement in the revised drafts was linked to peer feedback. Further statistical analyses indicate that the learner variables of interest did not affect the effectiveness of the peer review activity. In addition, qualitative analyses of the questionnaire data and the interviews reveal a general acceptance of peer review as a socioculturally appropriate pedagogical activity for Chinese students. The results of the study are interpreted with an understanding of its limitations, and directions for further research are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amores, M. (1997). A new perspective on peer editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 513–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching second-language writing: Interacting with text. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188. doi:10.2307/3587209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, I5(2), 1–14. doi:10.1177/003368828401500201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A. (2001). Hong Kong student teachers’ responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 129–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal, 52, 323–329. doi:10.1093/elt/52.4.323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31–38. doi:10.1093/elt/cci004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Essex, England: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. W. (2005a). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr169oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. W. (2005b). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107, 654–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. W. (2005c). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. W. (2006). Training Chinese ESL students for effective peer review. Asian Englishes, 8(2), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leki, I. (1990b). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5(1), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992b). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1–28. doi:10.1017/S0261444804002113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55, 38–46. doi:10.1093/elt/55.1.38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’. ELT Journal, 52, 19–28. doi:10.1093/elt/52.1.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492–528. doi:10.1177/0741088395012004004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Republic of Singapore

    Guangwei Hu

  2. Southwest University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China

    Sandra Tsui Eu Lam

Authors
  1. Guangwei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Tsui Eu Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guangwei Hu.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 A detailed distribution of (valid) peer comments and incorporated (valid) comments by student and type
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hu, G., Lam, S.T.E. Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instr Sci 38, 371–394 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation