Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relative Effects of Giving Versus Receiving Comments on Students’ Revision in an EFL Writing Class

「給予」與「接收」同儕評論對以英語為外語之學生寫作修改效益之比較

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
English Teaching & Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current research on the relative effects of giving versus receiving peer comments on students’ revision has produced inconclusive results due to researchers’ inattention to topic difference. The study is aimed to complement extant literature by exploring the role of writing topic difference in the actual changes triggered by the comments students give versus those they receive and how these changes contribute to their revision amount, type, and quality in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing class. Sixteen students participated in reciprocal peer review where they produced and reviewed different topics in three essay assignments. They received the same peer review training and instructions on responding to peer feedback during revision. The results show that students made significantly more macrostructure meaning changes based on the directives they received than on those they gave for the first and third assignments. They also made significantly more microstructure and meaning-preserving changes based on the directives they received in all three assignments. The average score of revision triggered by the directives students received was significantly higher than that triggered by the directives they gave for the first and third assignments. The results overall demonstrate that receiving peer feedback was more beneficial than giving peer feedback on students’ revision. Possible reasons include irrelevance of given comments to self-writing, students’ inability to see the relevance of given comments to self-writing, and authentic revising tasks for students as receivers.

摘要

現今比較「給予」與「接收」同儕評論對學生修改文章與其後續寫作效益之研究, 因研究者未探討「給予」者與「接收」者撰寫題目之異同, 以致產生不同研究結果。緣此, 本研究旨在探索「給予」者與「接收」者在撰寫不同題目之情境下, 其所「給予」與「接收」之同儕評論, 如何影響「給予」者與「接收」者文章修改的「數量」、「種類」、與「品質」。十六位以英語為外語的學習者參與此研究。他們接受相同的「同儕評論」訓練與「回應同儕評論」的指導。在三次英文作業中, 他們撰寫不同題目的短文, 互相「給予」且「接收」同儕評論, 並修改短文。研究結果顯示: 在大範圍的結構與語意修改數目方面, 學生在第一與第三個短文寫作, 其所根據「接收」之同儕評論而作的修改, 顯著地超過其所根據「給予」他人評論而作的修改; 在小範圍的結構與語意修改數目方面, 學生在三個短文寫作, 其所根據「接收」之同儕評論而作的修改, 顯著地超過其所根據「給予」他人評論而作的修改; 在修改品質方面, 學生在第一與第三個短文寫作, 其所根據「接收」之同儕評論而作的修改, 其品質顯著勝過其所根據「給予」他人評論而作的修改。總結上述研究發現: 「接收」同儕評論對學生自身修改較有益。可能原因如下: 「給予」他人之同儕評論與自身寫作無關、學生尚無法察覺「給予」他人之評論與自身寫作的關聯、及「接收」同儕評論者之寫作修改作業之真實性。

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Despite that the raters could trace some possible revision sources to the comments students both gave and received, the writers may not consider that their revision was triggered by both. Given that students were the owners of their texts and determined whose advice they wanted to take when revising their writing, the writer’s perception and decision was adopted.

References

  1. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). Theinstructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonyadi, A. (2014). The effect of topic selection on EFL students’ writing performance. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014547176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cao, A., Yu, S., & Huang, J. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into undergraduates’ learning from giving and receiving peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from a case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chang, C. Y. H. (2015). Study 2: A qualitative study of the benefits of L2 peer feedback to reviewer’s writing. In L2 peer feedback: Insight from EFL Taiwanese composition classrooms. Taipei, TW: Crane.

  6. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39, 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1.

  7. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006).Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294.

  9. Cohen, J. (2013). The impact of topic selection on writing fluency: Making a case forfreedom. Journal of NELTA, 18(1–2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v18i1-2.10328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Larios, J. R., & Murphy, L. (2001). Some steps towards a socio-cognitive interpretation of second language composition processes. International Journal of English Studies, 1, 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/356602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Flower, L. S. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning, A social cognitive theory of writing. Southern Illinois University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/358881

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600.

  14. Foley, S. (2013). Student views of peer assessment at the International School of Lausaanne. Journal of Research in International Education, 12, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240913509766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gielen, S., Tops, L., Docy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparativestudy of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilen, M., & de Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hatti, J., & Timperley, H. (2007).The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

  19. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Reading, writing, and language processes (pp. 176–240). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback onacademic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 995–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  22. Kim, M. (2009).The impact of an elaborated assessee's role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 105–114.https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955960.

  23. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving feedback. British Journal of Education Technology, 41, 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 Education Technology, 43, 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01180.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Meyer, B. J., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nicol, D. (2013). Resituating feedback from the reactive to the proactive. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 34–49). NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074336-8.

  29. 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, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9.

  32. Snowball, J. D., & Mostert, M. (2013). Dancing with the devil: Formative peer assessment and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.705262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sotoudehnama, E., & Pilehvari, A. (2016). The impact of peer review on EFL learners’ writing proficiency: Global and local aspects. Porta Linguarum, 25, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.53887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Spivey, N. N. (1991). The shaping of meaning: Options in writing the comparison. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 390–418.

  35. Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 20, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang, Y. F. (2010). Cognitive conflicts and resolutions in online text revisions: Three profiles. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 202–214.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yoon, H.-J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited. Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (MOST 105-2410-H-006-079-MY2). We also thank Wendell Wang for his assistance in coding the qualitative data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Foreign Languages and Literature Department, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

    Hui-Tzu Min & Yi-Min Chiu

  2. Center for English Language Teaching, Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Yi-Min Chiu

Authors
  1. Hui-Tzu Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Min Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui-Tzu Min.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample Peer Review Questions for Comparison/Contrast Essay

  1. 1.

    Does the introductory paragraph begin with a hook?

  2. 2.

    Is there a thesis statement containing specific points of comparison?

  3. 3.

    Did the author use the point-by-point organization or block organization?

  4. 4.

    Does the topic sentence of the 1st body paragraph correspond to the 1st point of comparison in the thesis statement?

  5. 5.

    Did the author provide contrasting/similar examples and explanations for the 1st point of comparison for A and B?

Appendix 2: Sample Questionnaire Questions

  1. 1a.

    As a writer, what kinds of comments did you find most helpful? Why?

  2. 1b.

    Give a specific example of the comments you received. Who gave you the comments?

  3. 2a.

    As a reviewer, what kinds of comments did you usually give to others and also paid attention to in your writing?

  4. 2b.

    Give a specific example of the comments you gave to others and used/avoided using in your own writing.

    1. (1)

      State whose paragraph and which comment you gave to that person here.

    2. (2)

      Also indicate the part in your own paragraph that you revised according to the comment you gave to others.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Min, HT., Chiu, YM. The Relative Effects of Giving Versus Receiving Comments on Students’ Revision in an EFL Writing Class. English Teaching & Learning 46, 293–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-021-00094-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-021-00094-2

Keywords

關鍵詞

Search

Navigation