Impacts of peer review training on freshmens peer feedback activity at faculty of english language teacher education, ULIS VNU

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LƯU NGỌC LY

IMPACTS OF PEER REVIEW TRAINING ON
FRESHMEN’S PEER FEEDBACK ACTIVITY AT
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER
EDUCATION, ULIS – VNU

ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC HƯỚNG DẪN NHẬN XÉT BÀI VIẾT CHO
BẠN HỌC TỚI HOẠT ĐỘNG PHẢN HỒI BÀI VIẾT CỦA SINH VIÊN
NĂM THỨ NHẤT, KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH, TRƯỜNG ĐHNN,
ĐHQG HÀ NỘI

M.A. Combined Programme Thesis
Field: English Language Teaching Methodology (ELT)
Code: 60 14 10


Hanoi, 2011


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LƯU NGỌC LY

IMPACTS OF PEER REVIEW TRAINING ON

FRESHMEN’S PEER FEEDBACK ACTIVITY AT
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER
EDUCATION, ULIS – VNU

ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC HƯỚNG DẪN NHẬN XÉT BÀI VIẾT CHO
BẠN HỌC TỚI HOẠT ĐỘNG PHẢN HỒI BÀI VIẾT CỦA SINH VIÊN
NĂM THỨ NHẤT, KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH, TRƯỜNG ĐHNN,
ĐHQG HÀ NỘI

M.A. Combined Programme Thesis
Field: English Language Teaching Methodology (ELT)
Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor: Đinh Hải Yến, M.Ed

Hanoi, 2011


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
1. Rationale of the study......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study and research questions...................................................................................... 2
3. Scope of the study............................................................................................................................... 3
4. Research methodology....................................................................................................................... 3
5. Design of the study............................................................................................................................. 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................... 5
1.1. Teaching writing............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1.1. Reasons for teaching writing.............................................................................................. 5

1.1.2. Approaches to teaching writing.......................................................................................... 6
1.1.2.1. Product vs. process approach 6
1.1.2.2. Genre approach
1.1.2.3. Creative writing approach

7
8

1.2. Peer review....................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.1. Definition of peer review..................................................................................................... 9
1.2.1.1. Old concept of review
1.2.1.2. Contemporary concept of review

9
10

1.2.2. Benefits of peer revision.................................................................................................... 11
1.2.3. Problematic aspects of peer revision.............................................................................. 13
1.2.4. Ways to create effective peer revision............................................................................ 14
1.2.4.1. Creating effective peer revision groups

15

1.2.4.2. Peer review training 16
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 21
2.1. Rationale for the use of action research............................................................................... 21
2.2. Context of the study.................................................................................................................... 23
2.2.1. Participants........................................................................................................................... 23

5

2.2.2. The writing course for freshmen at ULIS, VNU.......................................................... 24
2.3. Intervention................................................................................................................................... 26
2.3.1. In-class modeling................................................................................................................ 26
2.3.2. Small group conference..................................................................................................... 29
2.4. Instruments.................................................................................................................................... 30
2.5. Data collection procedure......................................................................................................... 31
2.6. Data analysis methods................................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS..................................... 35
3.1. Results from student writing analysis.................................................................................. 35
3.1.1. Quantity of students‘ comments before and after training........................................ 35
3.1.1.1. Total number of comments before and after peer review training.............35
3.1.1.2. Comparison of mistakes made by writers and comments made by
peers....................................................................................................................... 36
3.1.1.3. Discussion of research question 1..................................................................... 37
3.1.2. Quality of students‘ comments before and after training........................................... 38
3.1.2.1. Comparison between global comments and local comments before
and after peer review training........................................................................... 38
3.1.2.2. Comparison of the specification of comments before and after
training.................................................................................................................................... 42
3.1.2.3. Comparison of the relevance of comments before and after training.......43
3.1.2.4. Discussion of research question 2…………………………………….…46
3.2. Results from interviews with students…………………………………..………….47
3.2.1. Students‘ reactions to peer review training as reviewers........................................... 47
3.2.2. Students‘ reactions to peer review training as writers................................................ 53
3.2.3. Discussion of research question 3................................................................................... 56
3.3. Implications................................................................................................................................... 59
3.3.1. Before training..................................................................................................................... 59
3.3.1.1. Preparation.............................................................................................................. 60

3.3.1.2. Pre-training activities........................................................................................... 61


6

3.3.2. While training....................................................................................................................... 62
3.3.3. After training........................................................................................................................ 63
PART C: CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 65
1. Summary and conclusion of the study......................................................................................... 65
2. Limitations of the study................................................................................................................... 67
3. Recommendations for further study............................................................................................. 68
References.............................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3


7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Detailed program of the study............................................................................................ 32
Table 2: Aspects of writing analysis ……………………………………...……………….33
Table 3: Number of comments before vs. after training ……………..……........................... 35
Table 4: Amount of peer comments vs. mistakes students made …………........................... 37
Table

5:

Percentage

of

global

and

local

comments

before

vs.

after

training

……………………………………………………………………………………………..39


8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: White and Arndt process writing model........................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Percentage of comments in certain aspects before vs. after training.......................40
Figure 3: Comparison of the specification of comments before vs. after training.................42
Figure 4: Relevant comments vs. irrelevant comments before and after training..................44
Figure 5: Relevant comments vs. irrelevant comments before training................................... 44
Figure 6: Relevant comments vs. irrelevant comments after training……………………..45

9

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study:
In Vietnam, the teaching of English as a foreign language begins formally from as early as the
elementary level up to the tertiary level and is regarded as one of the most important academic
subjects at all levels‘ curricula. In teaching English, attention is paid to all four skills in second
language acquisition though it is not equal. Not until reaching tertiary level can students learn
writing in a systematic way.
From my two year-experience as a university instructor of English, specialized in teaching
writing to freshmen at University of Languages and International studies, Vietnam National
University (ULIS – VNU), I recognized that the students faced many difficulties in this
important subject. To help them overcome those problems, at first, as any novice teachers, I
tried my best to correct or give comments to all my students‘ problems in their writing.
However, gradually, I recognized that correcting all students‘ mistakes was not a good way to
help them as it made them feel demotivated when receiving a corrected version which was full
of red ink. Moreover, when all the problems were identified, students did not think much about
them. Therefore, they continued making the same mistakes even though such mistakes had
been repeatedly pointed out to them. Various kinds of feedback such as direct feedback,
indirect feedback, written feedback, spoken feedback, and focused feedback were applied, but
no obvious difference was noticed.
In the process of finding a solution to the problem in my writing class, accidentally came to
my mind was the notion of ―peer feedback‖ or ―peer response‖ by Rollinson (2005) in his
article entitled ―Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class‖. In his article, he stated that
peer feedback has been generally advocated in the literature as ―a potentially valuable aid for
its social, cognitive, affective, and methodological benefits‖ (Mendoca and Johnson, 1994,
Villamin and de Guerrero, 1996 as cited in Rollinson, 2005, p. 1). However, in applying peer
feedback, more problems than benefits were witnessed. The reasons for that have preliminarily

10

been identified as the result of students‘ lack of basic knowledge and experience in peer
response activity.
In order to find a workable solution to the given problem, I have consulted many materials and
read many previous studies on the field. Stanley (1992) suggested training students to be
familiar with the genre of their peer‘s writing and using effective communication in peer
review. The results of her experiment research revealed that the experimental group made
more responses and more types of responses than the control group. Zhu (1995) utilized a
small group conference approach in his experiment research to L1 peer responders in freshman
composition classes. The researcher came to a conclusion that such peer training brought about
significant effects on both the quantity and quality of peer feedback. Min (2006) carried out a
research on peer training to examine the effects of trained peer review on EFL students‘
revision types and quality. The researcher also asserted the positive effects of trained peer
review on students‘ feedback. However, the benefits of peer review training on the
improvement of students‘ peer feedback and writing quality has never been verified in
Vietnamese context. Therefore, with the support in the theory and the urge of finding a
practical solution to improve the practice of the peer feedback, I decided to conduct this study
on peer review training.
2. Aims of the study and research questions:
The study is designed to investigate the effects of peer review training on the quality of
students‘ peer review activity at ULIS – VNU. It aims to achieve three objectives.
- To investigate the quantity of students‘ comments to their peer‘s writing before and
after peer review training.
- To investigate the quality of students‘ comments to their peer‘s writing before and
after peer review training.
- To investigate students‘ reactions to peer review training as both writers and
reviewers.

11

In order to achieve the above-mentioned aims, the research questions of the study are set out
as follows.
1)

Is there any difference in quantity of students‘ comments to their peer‘s

writing before and after peer review training?
2)

Is there any difference in quality of students‘ comments to their peer‘s writing

before and after peer review training?
3)
3.

What are students‘ reactions to peer review training?

Scope of the study:

Most of first year students, when entering university, are beginners in academic writing and
peer review activity, so they have a lot of difficulties and need much help provided by
teachers. One thing teachers can do for their students is the provision of peer review training
so that students know how to give comments to their peer‘s writing effectively, from which
they can co-learn and improve their own writing. Therefore, the scope of this study is limited
to investigating the impacts of peer review training on first year students only. Accordingly,
the subjects chosen for this study are first year students at Faculty of English Language

Teacher Education, ULIS – VNU who finished their first semester at university and are in their
second one.
4. Research methodology:
To find out the answers to the proposed research questions within the scope of the study, the
main research method employed in this study is an action research whose intervention was in
the form of discussion, in-class modeling as suggested by Min (2005) and small group
conference as adapted from Zhu (1995). Participants were a class of 18 students where the
researcher worked as a writing teacher.
In order to collect sufficient data to fully address the three given research questions, this study
utilized two data collection instruments. The first instrument is writing analysis. The data for


12

analysis were students‘ portfolios turned in by the end of the semester with their two essays
before peer review training and two essays written consecutively after training. The second
instrument is interview. The interviews with open-ended questions about the peer review
training were informally conducted with all the participants after training in order for them to
fully express their opinions about the peer review training.
For student writing, analysis was concerned with the quantity and quality of students‘
comments to their peer‘s writing in the essays prior to peer review training and the essays post
peer review training. The data collected from the interviews were categorized to find the main
areas of concern among participants as writers and reviewers as well.
5. Design of the study:
The study is comprised of three parts.
Part A - Introduction provides a brief introduction of the study.
Part B– Development which is the main part is divided into 3 chapters.
Chapter 1 – Literature review reviews the literature relevant to the study including aspects of
teaching writing and peer revision.
Chapter 2 – Methodology is a detailed discussion of the method used in the study

encompassing the justification for using action research, the context of the study, the
intervention, data collection instruments, data collection procedure, and data analysis methods.
Chapter 3 – Results, Discussion and Implications presents significant findings of the study, a
discussion of the major findings from which some pedagogical implications were derived.
Part C – Conclusion summarizes the main issues addressed in the study. Some limitations of
the study that serve as the basis for the researcher‘s suggestions for further study were also
pointed out in this part.


13

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides the theoretical background for the study. It covers theories related to
teaching writing and peer revision.
1.1. Teaching writing
Reasons for teaching writing:
Human beings learn other languages beside their mother tongue with the ultimate purpose of
communication. Communication can happen orally or in written form. However, according to
Raimes (1983, p. 3), the fact that people have to communicate in the written form is not the
only reason for the existence of writing as the essential part of second language learning. One
more important reason is that it helps students learn by at least three ways. First, it helps
reinforce the grammatical structures, idioms, and vocabulary that have been taught. Second,
when writing, students will have opportunities to be ―adventurous‖ with the language, to go
beyond what they have just learnt. Third, when students write, they can become more involved
with the new language. The struggle of finding the right words or structures to express
thinking, the stress of what ideas to put down on their papers and organizing these ideas can
help them reinforce learning. Therefore, Raimes (1983, p. 3) maintained that ―the close
relationship between writing and thinking makes writing a valuable part of any language
course‖. However, the question of how to teach writing effectively in EFL/ESL classes seems

to be a difficult one to be addressed because there is no single answer to it. Teachers need to
base on many factors such as teaching styles, teaching conditions, students‘ characteristics and
learning styles to choose an appropriate approach to the teaching of writing. The next part
discusses a variety of current approaches to the teaching of writing.


14

1.1.2. Approaches to teaching writing:
1.1.2.1.

Product vs. process approach:

In the teaching of writing, teachers can focus on the product of writing or on the writing
process itself. When centering on the product, teachers‘ main attention is the aim of a task and
in the end the outcome of the task. Typically, teachers begin the lesson by introducing the
topics, activating relevant vocabulary and focusing on specific structures which may be used
in performing the task. Then, students are asked to work alone to write within a time limit to
produce a draft which is also the only draft handed in for teacher to grade and identify errors
before handing back the work for error correction. The criterion of the product is readable,
grammatically correct, and appropriate in some discourse conventions of organization and
layout. However, this approach suffers from some criticism. First, in this approach, writing is
just seen as ―an act of transferring ideas to paper with attention neither to the context nor to
the stages writers go through when creating a text‖ (Aires, 2010, p.2). Moreover, feedback and
evaluation are delayed after the whole text is finished, which prevents students from
improving their written work. In addition, students often assume that their only role is to write
to get mark, and their teacher‘s is to evaluate. Teachers under this approach are denying
students‘ possibility of developing their capacity for self-assessment and peer assessment.
However, in recent years, with the development of approaches which emphasize leanercentered education, there has been a shift in the way writing is taught. Process writing is a
pedagogical approach that puts great emphasis on both communicating and composing.

According to Harmer (2001, p. 257), in process approach, teachers pay attention to various
stages that any piece of writing goes through. In the process writing model introduced by
White and Arndt (1991, p.5) below, process writing is an interrelated set of recursive stages.


15

Drafting

Structuring

Figure 1: White and Arndt process writing model
(White and Arndt, 1991, p. 5)
It can be said that whereas product approach focuses on teaching and instructing students
―what‖ to write, process approach is concerned with ―how‖ to write and facilitates students
to be good writers. However, the application of process approach reveals some certain
drawbacks. First, due to the characteristics of the process approach, a considerable amount of
time is required, namely time for brainstorming ideas, redrafting, reediting, and so on.
Moreover, in the writing process, various stages may involve discussion, research, and
significant amount of interaction between teacher and students and among students themselves
(Harmer, 2001, p. 258).
1.1.2.2.

Genre approach

Swales (1990), as cited in Kim (2007, p. 34) defined a genre as ―a class of communicative
events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes‖. This definition
proposes an idea that there are common conventions or rules associated with a writer‘s
purpose. For example, a letter may include such parts as date of writing, inside address,

16

salutation, body text, complementary closing, signature, and name. In terms of language, there
is a difference in language use between a formal and an informal letter.
Swales (1990) and Martin (1984), as cited in Kim (2007, p.34) shared an essential viewpoint
that ―all genres control a set of communicative purposes within certain social situations and
that each genre has its own structural quality according to those communicative purposes.‖
Therefore, when genres are exploited within a writing class, it is essential to identify the
communicative purposes and the structural features. The structural features include both the
standard of organization structure and linguistic features.
The discovery of typical features of a genre is considered to be part of the pre-writing phase
(Harmer, 2001, p. 259). This is the difference between process approach and genre approach in
Kim‘s view (2007, p. 35). Process approach, as mentioned above, consists of ―prewriting,
composing/drafting, revising, and editing‖ (Badger & White, 2000, p. 154). However, it is
worth noticing that the pre-writing of process approach focuses ultimately on idea generating
and gathering without sufficient attention to linguistic knowledge, such as grammar and the
organization of content. Genre writing approach can solve this because according to Badger &
White (2000, p. 155-6), being exposed to similar texts, students can detect the specific
conventions of that genre from which they can embark on their own writing.
1.1.2.3.

Creative writing approach

Creative writing means imaginary tasks such as writing a poem, a story, or a play. According
to Ur (1996, p. 169, as cited in Harmer, 2001, p. 259), this kind of writing can promote some
sense of achievement in students as they can produce the result, ―feel pride in their work‖,
and ―want it to be read‖.
Creative writing is ―a journey of self-discovery and self-discovery promotes effective
learning‖ (Gaffield & Vile, 1998, as cited in Harmer, 2001, p. 259). Therefore, this type of

writing generates stronger motivation for students to write in a greater variety of correct and
appropriate language than they might for routine assignments. The reason for this is that


17

students can use their own experience and can write what they want to write about. For
example, they may want to write a poem about someone they care about, a story of their
childhood, etc.
However, students may also feel imaginative writing difficult as they have nothing to say,
which may lead to a sense of frustration and failure. In order to avoid this, Harmer (2001, p.
260) suggests that teachers should encourage them to make as much effort as possible for
maximum benefits. It is also important not to set too high expectation from the very first by
allowing students to write phrases and sentences before whole compositions.
1.2. Peer review
1.2.1. Definition of peer review
1.2.1.1. Old concept of review:
In classical rhetorical theory, review or revision was not considered an important factor in
writing. Hodges (1982, as cited in Clark et al, 2003, p. 108) stated that in Aristotle‘s opinion,
composing meant finding and structuring content and then polishing the sentences. Within this
light, sentence-level corrections were emphasized rather than revision to get new ideas in
composing. Therefore, the narrow definition of the revision process as surface editing and
correcting continued to be popular. During the Middle Ages, invention was not as important as
imitation and style was not connected to content. During the Renaissance, the idea that
revision was primarily alteration at sentence-level was further advocated. Although as Hodge
(1982, as cited in Clark et al, 2003, p. 109) wrote, both Frances and Ben Johnson were not in
favor of preoccupation with style and supported a view that would advocate the revision of
content and arrangement, their ideas were not accepted. Therefore, more attention was paid to
polishing the language use and finding the most efficient tropes such as metaphor,
personification, and synecdoche to express ideas.

18

In the United States, the concept of error correction initially came into existence in the late
19th century because of social conditions. It was the time when the Harvard University set an
entrance examination which required students to write a short composition with correction in
spelling, punctuation, grammar, and expression. The urge of organizing a course in writing
arose when half of the prospective students failed the exam. Subsequently, students had to
attend the composition course in which frequent short compositions were written for their
instructors to read and indicate grammatical errors. Then, it was the task of the students to
rewrite to correct the errors after the essays were returned. This approach to revision became
―an integral part of the current traditional approach to rhetoric that dominated both university
and high school composition instruction until the 1960s‖ and ―firmly established a concept of
revision as rewriting to correct grammatical errors‖. (Clark et al, 2003, p. 109)
1. 2.1.2. Contemporary concept of review:
Beginning in the 1960s, more interest was put into review/revision as an important step in
composing process. Initially composing was viewed as linear process in which writers moved
from such steps as prewriting or intervention, then drafting, revision, and finally editing.
However, later theorists and researchers support the ―recursive model in which writers moved
back and forth among the activities of invention, drafting, and revision throughout the
composing process‖ (Perl, 1979, as cited in Clark et al, 2003, p.110). Under this view, writers
could do the revision at any point during composing process and at any level from the word
level, sentence level to the discourse level with the principal concern of developing meaning
which is suitable to the purpose and audience. Murray (1978) differentiated two kinds of
revision, the old approach and the new one as ―external revision‖ and ―internal revision‖
respectively. The external revision involved editing, proofreading, and attending to form, style,
language, and mechanics whereas the internal approach included ―everything writers do to
discover and develop what they have to say, beginning with the reading of a completed first
draft‖ (Murray, 1978, p. 87). In the later approach, four aspects of discovery were recognized.

They are discovery of content and information, form and structure, meaning through language
use, and finally point of view.


19

To sum up, the modern approach of revision addressed the questions concerning content,
organization, and audience before the question of correctness which was once the primary
focus of the old concept of revision. As a result, any change related to correctness was referred
to editing rather than revision (Clark et al, 2003, p.110-11). This definition also coincides with
Lannon (1989) when the author stated that revisions do not only mean proofreading to correct
mechanical mistakes such as spelling or punctuation, but involve attention to ―rhetorical
features, worthwhile content, sensible organization and readable style‖ (p. 70).
Under the view of the modern approach, peer revision or peer review is the activity involving
―sharing one's writing with a group of peer readers who offer feedback and suggestions for
improvement‖. (The University of Hawaii)
1.2.2. Benefits of peer revision
The practice of peer revision is fostered in both L1 and ESL/EFL writing classes and received
much support for its cognitive, affective, social, and linguistic benefits (Min, 2006). It has
been proved to assist not only college (de Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Mendonca & Johnson,
1994; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996 cited in Min, 2006) but also secondary students (Peterson,
2003; Tsui&Ng, 2000 cited in Min, 2006). Below are some widely accepted benefits of peer
review activities.
One important benefit of peer review is that it can help produce useful feedback and effective
revision. According to Rollinson (1998, as cited in Rollinson, 2005), the result of a research
among college-level students revealed that the percentage of valid comments (80%)
outweighed that of damaging ones (7%). Caulk (1994, as cited in Rollinson, 2005) proposed
the same results when the author found out that 89% of his intermediate/advanced level
foreign language students gave useful comments. Moreover, the level of revision uptake of
peer comments was found to be very high in Mendoca and Johnson (1994) (53%) and in

Rollinson (1998, as cited in Rollinson, 2005) (65%). Another reason for the adoption of peer
review is that students‘ responses tend to be more specific than teachers‘ general ones (Caulk,


20

1994) and can be seen as complementary (Berg, 1999; Chaudron, 1984 as cited in Rollinson,
2005).
The next advantage of peer review which is a direct result from the above-mentioned benefit is
the improvement of writing quality. Villamil and De Guerrero (1998, as cited in Miao et al,
2006) found that peer feedback had a beneficial effect on the quality of writing. Berg‘s (1999)
study of ESL classes in the USA also confirmed the effectiveness of peer feedback as a means
of aiding writing development. In his/her view, the peer review task is beneficial not only to
writers who can receive useful feedback and effectively uptake the revision in their writing but
also to reviewers who can learn from their peer and the activity itself.
Another benefit is to promote collaboration and communication among writers and reviewers
which develops learners‘ autonomy and decreases their dependence on teachers. According to
Rollinson (2005, p. 24), peer review activity can potentially generate more response and
interaction, from which two-way feedback and negotiation of meaning are established. Peer
response activity also ―fosters a myriad of communicative behaviors‖ (Villamil & de
Guerrero, 1996, p. 69, as cited in Rollinson, 2005, p. 25) and ―highly complex sociocognitive interactions involving arguing, explaining, clarifying, and justifying‖ (Rollinson,
2005, p. 25). Harmer (2004, p. 115) considers peer review a ―valuable element‖ because it
promotes collaboration among students and prevents them from passively accepting teachers‘
comments. Villamil and De Guerrero (1998, as cited in Miao et al, 2006, p. 181) also confirm
the learners‘ autonomy that peer review brought about. Hyland and Hyland (2006, p. 39)
viewed peer review as ―a unique opportunity‖ in which students exploit their social
experience to help each other in the development of writing skills and discourse strategies.
Moreover, the peer revision task allowed both readers and writers to ―consolidate and
reorganize knowledge of the L2 and make this benefit explicit for each other‘s benefits.‖
Hyland and Hyland (2006, p. 39)

21

It is clearly seen that the effectiveness of peer review has been supported by the theoretical
claims and generally positive findings. However, some considerations regarding peer review
and the implication of peer review should be taken into account as presented in the next part.
1.2.3. Problematic aspects of peer revision
Despite enthusiastic claims and positive comments towards peer revision, some problems are
inevitable (Kraemer, 1993; Styslinger, 1998; Berkenkotter, 1984, as cited in Clark et al, 2003;
Rollinson, 2005; and Harmer, 2004).
Rollinson (2005, p. 25) showed that peer feedback, whether oral or written one, can be a
lengthy process because the act of reading a draft, making notes, then either writing comments
on the draft or interacting with writer to reach a consensus or negotiate meaning will take a
significant amount of time. Therefore, peer review activity requires much investment of time.
More importantly, much consideration in terms of student characteristics and attitude should
be taken into account. Rollinson (2005, p. 26) reminded that students may not easily accept
their peers who act as substitutes of their teacher and become assessors of their writing. They
often value teacher‘s comments rather than peer‘s as many studies showed. For example, in
Zhang‘s (1995) study (as cited in Miao et al, 2006, p. 180) which was carried out among ESL
students at two universities in the USA, the result showed that a very high figure of of students
(94%) preferred teacher feedback to peer feedback. Students often judged the value of their
peer comments in relation to their perception of ability and course grade. Therefore, the
success of peer review depends much on the reviewers and writers, so peer review will fail if
they do not cooperate well (Harmer, 2004, p. 117). In addition, students may express some
irritation with the peer review process (Styslinger, 2004; Kraemer, 1993, as cited in Clark et al,
2003). They often found it uncomfortable to criticize their peer writings and be criticized.
Students also showed some dissatisfaction with their peer comments which were described as
―too limiting, general, or nice and not always based on a careful reading of the paper‖
(Styslinger, 1998, as cited in Clark et al, 2003, p. 115)

22

Some studies have proved that culture has some influence on the effectiveness of the peer
review (Allaei and Connor, 1990, as cited in Miao et al, 2006). In the studies of Nelson &
Murphy (1993), Carson and Nelson (1994, as cited in Miao et al, 2006, p 182), peer review
worked less well with Chinese speaking students as they were less likely to ―accept the right
of other non-native speakers of English to judge their writing‖ and ―will generally work
toward maintaining group harmony and mutual face-saving to maintain a state of cohesion‖.
The conclusion was that
ESL students from countries with a large power distance are perhaps less likely to value their
peers‘ views than are students from countries with a lower power distance, e.g., students from the
United States.

(Nelson & Carson, 1998, p. 130)
One more important difficulty is the quality of peer comments. Resulting from students‘
aforementioned negative attitude, they are not keen on providing useful feedback. Moreover,
in students‘ perception doing peer review means editing which is the old concept of revision,
so they only focus on sentence-level problems (Styslinger, 1998, as cited in Clark et al, 2003,
p. 115). Also, Yagelski (1995) found that students still focused their revision on surface and
stylistic concerns.
All in all, there are many problems arising when adopting peer revision activity as
Berkenkotter stated ―using peer response effectively was neither simple nor straightforward‖
(Berkenkotter, 1984, as cited in Clark, 2003, p. 121). Therefore, peer review does not happen
automatically, but teachers‘ guidance in facilitating students and creating successful peer
revision is required. Ways for teachers to achieve this will be discussed in the next part.
1.2.4. Ways to create effective peer revision:
According to Rollinson (2005, p. 26), all the afore-mentioned theoretical and practical
problems can be dealt with by

23

a)

―properly setting up the group and establishing effective procedures‖, and

b) ―adequate training, that is, coaching students in the principles and practices of
effective
peer group interaction and response‖.
The two given issues are identified as a prerequisite for successful use of this strategy by Berg
(1999, as cited in Miao et al, 2006). Netkirk (1984, as cited in Clark et al, 2003, p. 121) agreed
with Rollinson (2005) and Miao et al (2006) by confirming that ―peer groups might be
limited in their ability to provide an adequate response to student papers without careful
preparation and training‖.
1.2.4.1.

Creating effective peer revision groups:

According to Rollinson (2005), in terms of basic procedures, teachers should consider: size of
groups; number of drafts to be written (often three); evaluation (whether the feedback is
evaluated or graded by the teacher). Significant variations in the size of group exist in peer
feedback research. For instance, Zhu (1995) supported groups of three or four and noted that
the group dynamics had a great influence on how the feedback group functions. This group
size is advocated in many other studies such as Allaei & Connor (1990); Nelson & Carson
(1998); Rollinson (2005, as cited in Miao et al, 2006). However, Min (2005, p. 296)
maintained that most EFL students preferred doing the peer review in pairs. This idea is
confirmed by Paulus (1999, p. 272) when the author argued that ―pairs of students offer more
opportunities for more intensive discussion about their writing‖. Pairs of students are also

adopted by Hu (2005) and Villamil and De Guerrero (1998, as cited in Miao, 2006, p. 183).
Regarding the response itself, the decision of whether having students make oral or written
feedback has to be made. Each type of response has its own advantages. In Chisholm‘s
opinion (..., p. 12), written response is beneficial in that it provides time for reader to think and
provide proper response and works as a reference after the peer review activity. Spoken
response with its flexibility can help generate ideas and make it easier for the expression of


24

comments which are ―harsh and cold‖ in writing. Therefore, it depends on teacher‘s
preference, time allowance, and other conditions to decide on a type of response to apply.
In addition, according to Rollinson (2005, p. 26), teachers should decide how the response
sessions are organized. Then the following questions should be addressed: Should students
work individually or in groups? How long is the reader-writer interaction allowed and to what
extent will the groups be supervised if the revision is oral? If the response is to be written,
what degree of oral interaction is allowed for clarification or debate?
Finally, teacher should decide what to follow after forming groups. For example, to train
students how to response, teachers can make a choice among intervention strategies such as
whole class workshop, conferencing, etc. These intervention strategies will be dealt with in the
next part.
1.2.4.2.

Peer review training:

1.2.4.2.1. Pre-training:
According to Rollinson (2005, p. 27), although the objectives of pre-training are ―numerous
and overlapping‖, it broadly concerns three areas: ―awareness raising‖; ―productive group
interaction‖; ―productive response and revision‖. The purpose of awareness raising is for
students to understand ―the principles and objectives of peer response‖. The productive group

interaction is to ―promote collaboration, supportiveness, tact and etiquette‖. Lastly, activities
concerning ―productive response and revision‖ are for students to understand basic
procedures, know how to produce effective comments and revision. Rollinson (2005, p. 27-28)
suggested the following pre-training activities.
 The ―propaganda phase‖: This includes explanation and comparison of the value of
peer response vs. teacher response, discussion of student concerns about providing
response by themselves, reasons for the provision of helpful feedback of peers at the


25

same level. Lastly, examples of professional writers‘ use of peer review can also be
provided.
 Class discussion of the purpose of response and role of the responder: these activities
can be done in the form of comparison of the role of the peer reader and that of the
teacher reader or discussion of why reader should be a collaborator rather than
corrector.
 Non-threatening practice activities: Class modeling and discussion of adequate and
inadequate commenting should be provided in these activities. Authentic comments
can also used for the class to analyze and evaluate. Moreover, the class could respond
to a sample writing to practice how to give effective comments and revision. The
teacher could also model effective collaboration comments, namely providing a
balance of clear explanation of problem and extensive suggestions for improvements.
 Small group work: the class could be divided in groups, each of which could write a
short text, then exchange the text with other groups to give and receive feedback. This
can be followed by self-evaluation activities and then group discussion of the
experience of peer response.
 Discussion of effective revision: Adequate and inadequate revision strategies could
be modeled for students to be capable of revising effectively from reader‘s comments.
1.2.4.2.2. Intervention training:

Although the significant roles of revision in composing has been confirmed in many research,
students are not well aware of this and often misunderstand peer revision for peer editing
which is concerned with error correction and making small changes in wording or sentence
structures. Therefore, rhetoricians and composition specialists have searched for strategies that
could encourage more meaning-based revision. Expanding students‘ understanding of revision
as a way of developing and shaping meaning and finding ways to intervene during the
composing process, and teaching students to revise at the rhetorical level are three main issues