Peer Response for Second Language Learners

Peer response is a method for teaching writing that is used in college, secondary, and elementary classrooms. In peer response, students read and respond to their peers' writing with written or oral feedback. While peer response is believed to offer many benefits, such as helping students to develop audience awareness and to become critical readers of their own work, the use of peer response with second language learners remains somewhat controversial. This is because there are many language and cultural barriers that make the use of peer response more difficult in second language classrooms. Nevertheless, research shows that these obstacles can be overcome if students are properly trained to use the technique. The benefits of peer response for second language learners include improved writing and language skills.

Keywords: Collaborative Learning; Communicative Competence; Constructivism; Direct Error Feedback; Indirect Error Feedback; Intercultural Communication; Peer Response; Peer Review; Second Language Writing; Sociocultural Theory; Target Language; Writing Workshop

Overview

Peer response is an accepted component of writing classes at the university, secondary, and elementary levels. In peer response, students' read one another's papers and provide oral or written feedback to the writer. Comments may concern positive or negative reactions to the content or structure as well as suggestions for improvement.

For native speakers of a language, the benefits of peer response are largely heralded without question. Supported by theories of rhetoric and composition which say that writing is both a social act and a process, peer response is believed to provide an ideal opportunity for learners to develop audience awareness, to become more critical of their own writing, and to gain a better understanding of revision as an integral part of the writing process. These are all important to the development of strong writing skills.

However, when peer response involves second language speakers, questions arise as to whether the same kinds of benefits are accrued. On the one hand, Sociocultural Theory and Constructivism are theories which provide a foundation for using peer response with second language learners. Both theories say that learning occurs through social interaction. Sociocultural Theory adds that learners learn by interacting with those who already hold the skills and knowledge being acquired. Constructivism views learners as constructing knowledge by integrating new skills and information with that which is already known. In peer response, readers and writers interact in ways which allows scaffolding one another's learning (DeGuerrero & Villamil, 2000; Teo, 2006) and constructing knowledge of the writing process. Furthermore, reading and responding to a text or writer is an opportunity to negotiate for meaning in an authentic environment (Riley, 1995). This is an essential skill that aids in both language acquisition and writing development.

On the other hand, students still developing language skills may have a more difficult time providing and interpreting feedback. Student attitudes, cultural backgrounds, and language proficiency can also pose obstacles to the successful implementation of peer response among second language learners (Nelson, 1997; Rollison, 2005). Thus, the use of this methodology with second language learners still invites debate and research whether these students are in the second language or regular composition classroom.

Further Insights

Barriers to Second Language Peer Response

The barriers to second language peer response begin with the most prominent, which is language proficiency. Fundamentally, reading and responding to someone's writing requires the ability to understand and craft sentences in the language of the paper. Can someone who is still learning grammar, vocabulary, and syntax effectively perform these tasks? Furthermore, writing in any language is governed by discourse rules that may be different from those of the reviewer. Could the reviewer's unfamiliarity with common discourse structures in the target language make it difficult to identify global errors related to organization and coherence?

Along with these language issues, culture and attitudes can also be obstacles to effective peer response. Many cultures do not encourage student interaction in the classroom, and students may be unfamiliar with or resistant to the idea of group work (Liu & Littlewood, 1997). Moreover, even when students are willing to work together, they must adjust to each other's communicative styles, which are heavily influenced by cultural norms. For instance, cultures vary in the manner in which individuals take turns in a conversation. For some cultures , a long pause many indicate that it is time for someone else to take a turn in the conversation, while in other cultures a shorter pause or an overlap in speech may occur (Alfaraz, 2009; Stivers et. al., 2009). Differences in communicative style can create miscommunication that causes frustration for group participants.

Nelson (1997) identifies four dimensions of intercultural communication which can impact peer response group interactions:

• Individualism vs. collectivism,
• Preservation of "face,"
• Power distance, and
• Communication style.

Individualism vs. collectivism refers to how individuals of a given culture perceive their identity in relationship to a group. In individualistic cultures, members of the culture separate their identities from that of the group. Though they may belong to many groups, they see these memberships as being the result of personal choice and convenience, and membership can be terminated without damaging self-identity. In collectivistic cultures, individual identities are defined by the group. Individuals belong to fewer groups, and one of their primary goals as a member is to maintain group harmony by maintaining relationships. This cultural dimension may impact peer response interactions because the practices of a peer response group run counter to the practices of a collectivist culture. The purpose of a peer response group is to provide constructive feedback to individuals so that they can individually improve their papers. However, individuals from collectivist cultures may feel that providing feedback threatens the feelings of their peers and negatively impacts the group climate. Thus, they may be reluctant to make critical comments, especially if those comments must be spoken out loud.

Preserving the feelings of others is also characteristic of the preservation of "face" which is a concept of politeness studies that refers to an individuals' positive self-image. Generally, people try to limit face-threatening acts, which could harm someone else's self-image. In some cultures, the preservation of face has considerable social significance. Thus, individuals from such cultures may have more difficulty giving and receiving feedback that could be perceived as threatening their or others' self-image. Carson and Nelson (1996) found that Chinese students in mixed peer response groups purposefully kept their comments to themselves in order to avoid hurting others' feelings and to avoid a divisive group climate. Zhu (2006) noted a similar behavior by English as a second language students in mixed peer response groups. During peer discussions, second language students were found to take fewer turns and to more readily give up their turns if they were interrupted while giving feedback. At the same time, they willingly provided critical feedback through written comments. While Zhu's study focused on turn-taking behaviors and did not draw any conclusions about the intercultural dimension of face preservation; it could be that students who gave up their turns or did not provide feedback did so because they did not want to threaten others' face.

The dimension of power distance refers to the social and status distance between two individuals. In some cultures, teachers are regarded as having significant social status. In these cultures, students regard their teachers as the dispensers of knowledge and accord them very high levels of respect. For students from such cultures, peer response groups may pose a challenge because students may be resistant to the idea that their peers — who fall lower in the status hierarchy — have anything useful to contribute to their writing. This may be especially true if their peers are also second language learners, causing them to distrust both their knowledge base and their language skills. Furthermore, students accustomed to passively accepting knowledge from their teachers may not trust their own skills as adequate for responding to others' work. Thus, they may feel uncomfortable and incompetent in the peer response situation, leading them to provide less useful feedback.

Feelings of incompetence can also arise out of differences in communication styles. As mentioned above, miscommunication can easily arise if students have different communication styles, leading to feelings of frustration by reviewers, who cannot get their point across, and writers, who cannot understand what their reviewers really mean (Nelson, 1997).

All of these language and cultural barriers, though sometimes subtle, have been shown to affect peer response interactions. The effects include impacts on the amount and type of feedback that second language learners give, the level of interaction during peer talks, and the degree to which students incorporate feedback into their revisions (Nelson, 2007; Riley, 1995; Zhu, 2006). A consistent finding has also been that barriers to effective peer response activities can be overcome through concerted teacher effort and the provision of training for student reviewers.

Peer Response Training

The importance of training for students who engage in peer response has been demonstrated in several studies (Berg, 1997, 1999; Min, 2008; Min, 2005; Zhu, 1995). Without training, second language students frequently provide vague feedback or have difficulty understanding what they are supposed to do during peer response. This leads those who receive their comments to disregard them as unhelpful. Training students to focus on a writer's ideas and intentions and to provide specific suggestions for improvement can turn a negative peer interaction into a positive one. Min (2005, 2008) teaches a four-step procedure for peer response that focuses on,

• Clarifying a writer's intentions,
• Identifying problems,
• Explaining the nature of the problem, and
• Making specific suggestions.

In at least two studies, Min has found that training improves second language students' confidence and metacognitive strategy use in producing feedback. Students have tended to make more comments that are longer and friendlier after training, which encourages incorporation of the feedback into a writer's revision. Training also facilitates language acquisition, for students using the four-step process reported that they learned new vocabulary as a result of having to make their comments more specific.

In addition to these positive outcomes, one of the most beneficial aspects of training peer responders is the development of self-editing skills that allow them to become more critical of their own work. Both Berg (1999) and Lundstrom & Baker (2009) found that the greatest benefit of peer feedback is often for the student who gives the feedback. Training that helps students learn to identify incongruities between intended meaning and conveyed meaning in a text and to apply writing concepts to a real-life writing situation fosters skills that students will eventually apply to their own writing.

Peer vs. Teacher Feedback

When peer response is implemented in a manner that provides students with adequate skills to function effectively in their groups, many second language speakers report positive feelings and perceptions about their experiences. Students have reported that writing workshops improve their writing skills and help them to enjoy learning and writing in English (Agesilas, 2002). Others have said that peer response enhances their sense of audience awareness, raises their own understanding of personal writing strengths and weaknesses, encourages collaborative learning and fosters ownership of a text (Tsui & Ng, 2000). On the other hand, some studies report that despite their positive feelings, students continue to prefer and/or utilize teacher feedback more than peer feedback because teachers are perceived to be experts that can be trusted (Tsui & Ng, 2000; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006). In expressing this preference, students seem to differentiate between feedback on language form and feedback on content.

The ability to produce accurate linguistic forms in a language is one aspect of communicative competence, or the ability to use language effectively within a given situation. In a language classroom, students spend much of their time learning the grammatical elements of verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs as well as the phrasal and syntactical structures necessary to communicate well. Thus, it is natural to expect that students in advanced language classes would continue to want feedback on linguistic forms as part of their language instruction. For this kind of feedback, students often prefer the advice of their teachers, who they assume to be experts in their native language, and therefore, the most qualified to provide such correction (Zacharia, 2007).

On the other hand, in advanced language and writing classes, the focus of instruction moves away from local or sentence level issues to the development of ideas within a variety of discourse structures (e.g., compare/contrast, argumentative essays). Teacher feedback in these classes may focus on asking students to clarify or redevelop their ideas instead of providing feedback on form. Although students may say they still prefer teacher feedback, they also indicate that interpreting teacher feedback on global and content issues may be more difficult. For instance, in Zacharia's (2007) study involving surveys of 100 Indonesian students, students interviewed after the survey indicated that comments on content were difficult to work with because entire ideas must be rethought. Additionally, students found more general feedback, such as "rephrase this sentence" to be less helpful because it did not show students how to make the change. In this study, although students generally indicated a preference for teacher feedback, when interviewed, some students stated that when teacher feedback was confusing, they turned to their peers to help them understand the comments and revise their papers. Thus, it appears that a preference for teacher feedback may represent a desire for particular feedback on form as opposed to feedback on writing in general.

Issues

Direct or Indirect Feedback on Linguistic Errors

Students who prefer teacher feedback on form might be surprised to learn that no one has yet determined the most effective method for correcting students' linguistic errors. This is, in fact, one of the most controversial issues within the field of second language writing. The debate focuses on whether teachers should provide direct or indirect error feedback or no feedback at all. In direct error correction, the teacher fixes the error so that during revision, the student only has to incorporate the proper form into the text. In indirect feedback, the teacher marks the error, but the student must correct the mistake. Two ways to mark an error are to underline or circle the error, without indicating the problem, or to mark the error with a code that tells the student what kind of problem has been made.

Research provides conflicting views on which of these three methods is most effective (Russell & Spada, 2006). For instance, Chandler (2003) found that direct correction and underlining errors without coding is significantly better than describing the error for reducing long-term errors. In contrast, Ferris and Roberts (2006) found that providing feedback is preferred to not providing feedback in encouraging error correction, but they found no significant differences between the correction of errors that were coded versus those that were simply marked. Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found signficant effects for the combination of explicit written feedback and conferencing on two types of errors, but no overall effects when all three errors in the study were taken together. These conflicting studies are representative of the many that have attempted to answer the question of how to best help second language writers improve their written errors. While the debate continues, Guénette (2007) writes that the answer will be found only when problems in research design and methodology are corrected.

In sum, the issue of using peer response with second language writers is one that continues to be controversial. While more teachers have introduced second language writers to peer response, effectively implementing the method requires training students to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers. Without this training, students may be reluctant to participate in the group or to provide little or no useful feedback to their peers. However, when trained to provide specific comments that clarify a writer's intentions and provide suggestions for improvement, second language learners can appropriately perform peer response functions. In turn, students who are successful in the peer response group reap the benefits of improving their own writing. As they become more aware of audience needs and more comfortable with revision as an essential component of the writing process, students adopt the critical stance that allows them to self-correct their own work. This provides them the means for continuing to develop and improve their writing in the long term.

Terms & Concepts

Collaborative Learning: Collaborative learning is an instructional method in which students work in small groups to accomplish a task.

Communicative Competence: Communicative competence is the ability to use a language appropriately within a given setting.

Constructivism: Constructivism is a theory of learning that says individuals construct their own understanding of the world by integrating what they learn with what they already know.

Direct Error Feedback: In direct error feedback, the teacher corrects the writer's mistake so that the writer only has to make the given changes in the text during revision.

Indirect Error Feedback: In indirect error feedback, the teacher marks the error either by underlining/circling it or by providing a code that indicates the type of error that has been made. The student must then determine how to correct the error.

Intercultural Communication: Intercultural communication is an academic field of study which seeks to understand how individuals from different cultures behave, communicate, and interact with one another.

Metacognitive Strategy: Metacognition refers to one's understanding of one's own learning processes and the ability to make choices to improve one's learning. Metacognitive strategies are strategies that learners can use to improve their learning.

Sociocultural Theory: Sociocultural Theory is a theory developed by Lev Vygotsky that says that individuals develop higher order skills and knowledge through interactions with someone who is already accomplished in those areas.

Target Language: Target language is the term used to refer to the language that someone is trying to learn.

Writing Workshop: A writing workshop is a popular peer response method for teaching writing. During a writing workshop, students read and respond to their peer's papers orally or through written comments.

Bibliography

Agesilas, M. J. (2002). The effectiveness of the writing workshop model to teach an English-as-a-second language college writing course in Puerto Rico: A look at students' outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 12A.

Alfaraz, G. (2009). Conversing through overlaps: Information status and simultaneous talk in Cuban Spanish. Multilingua, 28, 25-43.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.

Berg, C. (1997). The effects of trained peer response on writing quality, revision, strategies, and peer talk about ESL texts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 07A.

Berg, C. E. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G.L. (1996). Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interactions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296.

DeGuerrero, M.C.M, & Villamil, O.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2006). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.). Second-language writing in the composition classroom (pp. 380-410). Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's.

Gerena, L., & Keiler, L. (2012). Effective intervention with urban secondary English Language Learners: How peer instructors support learning. Bilingual Research Journal, 35, 76-97. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74688805&site=ehost-live

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.

Liu, N., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25, 371-384.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewers' own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.

Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.

Min, H. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Special Purposes, 27, 285-305.

Nelson, G.L. (1997). How cultural differences affect written and oral communication: The case of peer response groups. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, , 77-84. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9708242993&site=ehost-live

Philp, J., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Talking, tuning in and noticing: Exploring the benefits of output in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness, 22, 353-370. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91809574&site=ehost-live

Pishghadam, R., & Norouz Kermanshahi, P. (2011). Peer correction among Iranian English language learners. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3, 217-227. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67542456&site=ehost-live

Riley, S. M. (1995). Peer responses in an ESL writing class: Student interaction and subsequent draft revision (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 08A.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23-30.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A metaanalysis of the research. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97, 611-633. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89889019&site=ehost-live

Stivers, T., Enfield, N.J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., Peter de Ruiter, J., Yoon, K., & Levinson, S.C. (2009, June 24). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/23/0903616106.abstract

Teo, A.K. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATESOL Journal, 18, 160-178.

Tsui, A. B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170.

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.

Zacharia, N. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. Regional Language Centre Journal, 38, 38-52.

Zhu, W. (2006). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. In P.K. Matsuda, M.

Cox, J. Jordan, C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.). Second language writing in the composition classroom (pp. 186-209). Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's.

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492-528.

Suggested Reading

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.

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

Matsdua, P.K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2006). Second-language writing in the composition classroom. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's.