STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PEER RESPONSE IN THE MAINSTREAM MIXED
POPULATION COMPOSITION CLASSROOM
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Department of English
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
English
(Composition)
by
Courtney Denise Mazur
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Courtney Denise Mazur
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PEER RESPONSE IN THE MAINSTREAM MIXED
POPULATION COMPOSITION CLASSROOM
A Project
by
Courtney Denise Mazur
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Amy Heckathorn
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dan Melzer
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Courtney Denise Mazur
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
David Toise
Date
Department of English
iv
Abstract
of
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PEER RESPONSE IN THE MAINSTREAM MIXED
POPULATION COMPOSITION CLASSROOM
by
Courtney Denise Mazur
Peer response has become a significant part of many college-level writing courses.
Research has shown that training students in how to respond to their peers helps them
give more effective feedback. One factor that is noted in the research is the population of
current composition courses; many mainstream composition courses have multilingual
students enrolled in them, making them more diverse. Using a teacher research/case study
approach, I interviewed 16 students from my Fall 2013 first-year composition course at
California State University, Sacramento about their perceptions of peer response. While
initially students indicated a lack of interest in getting feedback from their peers, later on
in interviews students indicated that they felt that peer response was helpful. Specifically
focusing on the mixed population of the course, when students were asked about their
v
perceptions of their peers based on their language background, the results varied from
language background not being a factor to it having a slight effect on their trust level with
that peer.
________________________________, Committee Chair
Amy Heckathorn
_______________________
Date
vi
DEDICATION
In memory of my papa, Michael Mazur Sr. This past March marked the 10 year
anniversary of his passing—some days it seems like it was just yesterday. I learned so
much from him and I know he would be proud of how far I have come today.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jim, I do not know what I would do without you. You have stood by my side
throughout this entire process—I could not have done this without your endless support
and love. Thank you for always believing in me, even when I lost faith in myself.
To my family—thank you for supporting me all my life. Mom, you are the most
inspiring woman I know; raising a child, working, and going to school seems impossible,
but you never let on that it was. Nanna, you always find the positive in any situation, and
while things may not always be perfect, you are. Michael, you remind me to find the
humor in life.
To my amazing mentors that I have had the privilege of working with during my
time at Sacramento State: thank you for your guidance and encouragement. Fiona, I can
never fully express my gratitude for instilling in me the confidence and wisdom that I
have gained through your mentoring. Amy, your tenacity and integrity inspires me. I once
said that you were like a cloud of clarity because of the way you can synthesize
information with such ease and grace. Dan, you are a truly versatile advisor. You
introduced me to this new world; I was naïve at first but I am glad that you have been
around to see my growth during my time in this incredible program.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .............................................................................................................................. vii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... x
Chapters
1. COVER ESSAY ................................................................................................................ 1
2. TEACHING PHILOSOPHY .............................................................................................. 9
3. PUBLISHABLE DOCUMENT ........................................................................................ 11
4. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 56
Appendix A: Handout from Oral Presentation ....................................................................... 67
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Figure 1: Do you enjoy sharing drafts with peers?.....................................................24
2. Figure 2: Can you listen to peers reactions to your writing?......................................25
3. Figure 3: Can you give noncritical feedback to your peers? ................... ..................26
4. Figure 4: Can you give criterion-based feedback to your peers? ...............................27
5. Figure 5: Can you tell peers what they need to improve on? .....................................28
x
1
CHAPTER 1: COVER ESSAY
When I started my journey as a graduate student at Sacramento State, it was with
a concentration in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). I initially
wanted to join this discourse community because of my experience as an undergraduate; I
often enjoyed the linguistics and TESOL related courses rather than the literature courses.
As I took more TESOL courses, I found that I held different values than those of the
TESOL community. It was after I took English 220A—Teaching College Composition, I
knew that I was meant to study Composition. In English 220A, we discussed many
different theoretical approaches to teaching Composition courses. After reading through
the articles and theories, I knew that my values were centered more in Composition than
TESOL. One thing that was very apparent throughout all the readings is that Composition
is highly student-centered; Compositionists are always striving to make their practices
better to help their students. From my experience in my TESOL MA courses, TESOL is
tends to focus on the curriculum and the proficiency level of the students, and often there
is prescriptive curriculum for each level of proficiency. This curriculum-based method
does not leave enough room for two things that I value most as an instructor: a studentcentered class and critical self-reflection (by students as well as myself). I want to be
learning just as much from my students as they are learning from me, if not more. Also, I
always want my students to be asking themselves why they are doing something, and I
want myself to be reflecting on the purpose of every task I assign my students; without
this critical self reflection, I have found that there is no personal growth. These are some
of the values that I have developed during my time as a graduate student and instructor
2
here at Sacramento State. Moving forward I hope to apply these values in many different
teaching contexts and environments after I graduate from this Masters program.
My students complete an activity at the end of the semester in which they discuss
how they met the course goals, throughout the semester and I found myself in a similar
situation when writing this cover essay. This document was a major form of critical selfreflection; it required me to think about the ways I met the program’s learning outcomes
throughout the entire process. I admit that I initially thought that it would be a simple
task, but it was more challenging than I had anticipated. While I was constantly thinking
about ways I would approach the cover essay in conjunction to writing and revising the
other elements of this portfolio, when it came time to write this cover essay I had to
examine the details of my process. This cover essay also serves as the introduction to the
documents of my portfolio. What follows is an introduction of each document and how
the document demonstrates that I have met the learning outcomes of the Masters Program
in Composition at California State University, Sacramento.
I began building my teaching philosophy during my first semester as a teaching
associate in the Spring of 2013. While I started gaining the principles that I would discuss
in this philosophy in many of my graduate courses, it was not until I was in the classroom
teaching that I started reflecting on what practices I valued as an instructor and how that
made me unique. Like most students, I found myself emulating the professors that I
learned from in my own instructional methods. Many of the ideologies that I draw upon
in my own teaching philosophy are ones that were discussed in my Teaching College
Composition class. Paulo Freire’s “problem-posing method” represents the type of course
3
environment I hope to promote within my class, one in which students are involved in
and in charge of their own learning; I believe this is especially appropriate when teaching
multilingual students.
In my third semester as a teaching associate at Sacramento State, I had the
opportunity to teach a course other than English 1A; I petitioned to teach English 2
(College Composition for multilingual students) to apply both my TESOL skills and
Composition experience. In this course, I often found that the students were looking to
me for the “right” answer. In an effort to show that all language and literacies can
contribute to meaning making, I shared Freire’s reading with them. I stressed that I was
not the sole holder of knowledge in the room and that I wanted to learn from them and
their experiences. I found that this not only empowered my students but also made them
feel more comfortable in the class. Another way in which I show my students that their
own language and literacies are important is by having them discuss personal discourse
communities they are involved in; these usually range from their home discourses or
various group organizations. In this writing assignment, I have students describe what
role they play in the community, how language is used in their community, and finally
how their participation in their personal discourse community can influence or benefit
them in their current academic community. My goal with this assignment is to get
students to utilize existing knowledge and awareness in their academic career. This can
reinforce the value of their preexisting knowledge and demonstrate how this knowledge
can make them more diverse as a student.
4
Included in the annotated bibliography are 16 sources which related to both my
publishable document and my teaching philosophy. In the process of creating this
element of the portfolio, I performed a thorough reading process including annotating the
texts. While selecting texts for this bibliography, I read about a variety of writing
classroom pedagogies, mostly in regards to peer response. I strived to include a
combination of both TESOL and Composition research. Many of the articles that I found
were from the Journal of Second Language Writing; this also helped me understand the
expectations of this publication, which was crucial when creating my publishable
document. After reading and writing about these pedagogies in both my bibliography and
my publishable document, I adapted ways of applying them within my own teaching of
peer response. This bibliography also required me to use my knowledge of praxis as
some of the texts were more theoretical and some were more practical. Seeing both of
these types of texts not only enriched my knowledge of praxis, but also gave me models
for my own publishable document. While I was gaining a theoretical and practical
knowledge of the field of Composition through reading these sources, I also found ways
to apply the theories and research I had read. Further, I found ways that my own
classroom practices on peer response could help support and inform current research,
which was what inspired my publishable document.
I initially thought that I would create a resource manual for my publishable
document, but after analyzing the genre, it did not seem extensive enough for a Master’s
thesis. More importantly, I did not think I was doing my student participants justice with
a substantial focus on the resources rather than student voices. While I still like the idea
5
of a manual, after reflecting on how I was approaching the project, it seemed as though I
was trying to write a scholarly journal article in the genre of a manual. I also felt I needed
something that had clearer guidelines to give me a clear structure that I could follow, so I
decided to create an article for the Journal of Second Language Writing.
My article is focused on students’ perception of peer response in the mixed
population Composition classroom. I thought that the Journal of Second Language
Writing would be an appropriate venue since I am focusing on a mixed population of
native speaker and multilingual students. The methods and methodological frameworks
that I used in my research were teacher research and case study method. I utilized these
methods because as the instructor of the course, I knew the complete context of the
setting (e.g. knowing the students’ needs, strengths, and weaknesses) as well as being
able to guarantee the appropriate training for peer response was given to students. The
case study approach was used because of the personal interviews I held, in addition to the
small sample size (16 students). Also, I wanted to keep the number of participants
relatively small to ensure student voices would be heard rather than students being one
number in a large amount of data, as would have been the case if the research had been
done in multiple classes. I received approval from the Sacramento State Institutional
Review Board (IRB) to conduct research in my own class. This appeal process challenges
researchers to be sure that research done is ethical and fair to all participants. One of the
ways in which I ensured that participants were treated fairly was by using codes to
identify students in my article to conceal their identity. In an effort to use the
methodologies ethically, before the interviews began, I asked students to feel free to give
6
any answers they wanted, and reminded them that they were interacting with me as a
researcher during this interview; this was done to help ease any potential pressure to give
a distorted answer that they thought might impress their instructor.
While doing background research on peer response, I noticed that there was a
trend within the research indicating that training in peer responses is beneficial to
students; in my research, I wanted to know if this was true and, more specifically, what
resource is most beneficial to them. Another trend within current research on peer
response is the conclusion that students often do not like doing peer response because
they do not trust their peers. I wanted to look into this as well, and also for potential
reasons as to why. One reason for this is due to the language background of the
responder. In an effort to explore this idea further, I wanted to highlight multilingual
students in my Composition-based research article for a very TESOL based journal to
merge my two academic backgrounds. Many TESOL-related articles and concepts are
included in the publishable document to help frame my own research, but much of the
inspiration was from my experiences as a student and a teacher in Composition courses.
For instance, it was in my first Composition course that I encountered the text “Arts of
the Contact Zone” by Mary Louise Pratt; this reading has been crucial in my own
approach to teaching. This article helps when talking about times when students will
disagree (e.g. class discussions, peer response, small group work, group projects, etc.);
moreover, it teaches that even though groups of different backgrounds may not always
communicate in the same way, if they work through the conflict, there is chance they can
create meaning together. This is especially important for students within academic
7
discourse communities because they are learning to find their voice and enter the
conversation of academia; if instructors are stressing the value of their students’
contributions, students will have more confidence when they try to contribute.
My own process in creating all of these documents has reflected the values and
methods of an extensive writing process, similar to that of what I teach in my own
classes. Brainstorming is the step I spent the most time on in my personal writing
process. For me, brainstorming also includes talking to a peer to help bounce my ideas
off someone who can give me feedback on my ideas; this was especially true of the
publishable document which was the element that took the most energy and time. Getting
feedback from peers is not something I only value as an instructor; I value it as a writer as
well. After having a draft of a document, again I asked a peer to go through my draft with
me and give their reaction. After making revisions, I sent documents to readers and
received more feedback. One of my personal writing weaknesses is finding my own
errors within my writing. I was first made aware of this while taking a graduate TESOL
course where the professor noted that I had many errors that were not acceptable for a
graduate student, which prompted me to develop strategies to address this weakness in
my writing. One strategy I find helpful in addition to having an editor friend is reading
my writing aloud by paragraphs as I write. This strategy was especially beneficial when I
did a final read through of my annotated bibliography as the annotations of the sources
were done in two paragraphs. This experience was by no means easy but through it I
practiced a thorough and reflective writing process.
8
Moving forward, my main goal is to go on to teach students with a variety of
backgrounds and needs at different academic institutions in and around the Sacramento
area. I plan to apply the deep theoretical knowledge gained in my graduate level courses
as well as the practical teaching methods I have learned during my time as a teaching
associate to help me develop curriculum and have the confidence to teach in many
different classrooms.
9
CHAPTER 2: TEACHING PHILOSOPHY
COURTNEY MAZUR
TEACHING PHILOSOPHY
My personal teaching philosophy stems from a collaborative and process-based
pedagogy, one in which students are constantly engaged in the social construction of
knowledge through the exploration and understanding of their own reading, writing, and
thinking processes. In addition to discovering and understanding their own processes, my
students are encouraged to explore why they are making the choices they are to help them
gain a metacognitive understanding of their process. This metacognition enables students
to better perform their tasks, whether it be reading, writing, or thinking. By understanding
why we communicate the way that we do, we understand how to do it better. One of the
ways in which I emphasize writing as a process is by having students freewrite. For
freewrites, I often ask students multiple questions that frequently turn into something
they can utilize in their major writing assignments. This helps students because it enables
them to reflect on larger concepts by breaking them into smaller, low stakes writing tasks.
Another concept that I value when teaching is a process-based writing sequence.
Writing assignments are scaffolded into multiple drafts, including first drafts, peer
response drafts, progress drafts, and polished portfolio drafts. There is a strong emphasis
on peer feedback; students often respond to multiple peers for each writing assignment.
This maximizes the feedback they receive as well as the amount of writing they are
exposed to, giving them more ideas about what they could revise in their own writing.
Students are trained on how to give feedback to peers by reading Richard Straub’s
“Responding—Really, Responding—to Other Students’ Writing” and by using practice
peer response drafts, in which they make comments on the draft and get instructor
feedback on their responses. Students are given feedback at each stage leading up to the
polished portfolio draft where they present their final product. In their final portfolio,
students write a self-reflective cover letter explaining how they met the course goals as
well as how they have progressed as a writer. The goal of this cover letter is to encourage
10
students to reflect about their experience in the course, and in doing so, make an
argument on how they met the course goals; the assignment also requires students to use
metacognitive skills developed throughout the class.
One of the texts that influences my teaching philosophy is Paulo Freire’s
Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In this landmark reading, Freire discusses the banking
concept of education, in which instructors are the sole holders of knowledge. As he
disagrees with this concept, he proposes a problem-posing method, in which students
create knowledge collaboratively along with the teacher. I often share this reading with
my class to show students the type of environment that I hoped to foster: a collaborative
class that creates knowledge together. Some of the ways I utilize Freire’s pedagogy in
creating activities is by having a strong emphasis on student-led class discussion and
activities. For example, early on in the semester I often have student groups lead class
discussion on an assigned reading. Students often express that, at first, they found this
activity intimidating, but by the end of the activity they concluded that they learned more
from leading discussion; students also found that they enjoyed discussion led by their
peers.
In addition to creating a collaborative, process-based class, I aim to help students
develop rhetorical skills that they can utilize beyond the context of a classroom. One of
my own personal teaching goals is for students to leave my class as more rhetorically
aware readers, writers, and thinkers. My writing assignments often vary in genre, ranging
from an essay, to a letter, to a report; this is to help give students experience with
different writing situations. For example, in one of my writing assignments, I have
students write a letter to a future student. In this letter, they need to be mindful of their
audience and give the reader enough context to understand the concepts they are
introducing. Understanding how to approach a certain audience is crucial to all students,
no matter what their future academic or professional goals may be. Whether they are
creating a writing assignment for an instructor or writing a memo to their boss, they must
keep their audience and the context of the writing situation in mind in order to effectively
achieve their purpose and deliver their message.
11
CHAPTER 3: PUBLISHABLE DOCUMENT
Rhetorical Analysis of public venue for publishable document
For my publishable document, I created an article for the Journal of Second
Language Writing. The journal describes itself as “An international journal on second
and foreign language writing and writing instruction.” Audiences for this journal include
instructors and professors teaching ESL and EFL classes as well as those teaching
multilingual composition and writing courses. I chose this journal because “personal
characteristics and attitudes of L2 writers” is one of its main focuses, which aligns with
my interest in student perceptions of peer response in a mixed language population
setting. I consulted the Guide for Authors page of the Journal of Second Language
Writing website to gather specifics about the structure of the articles published in this
journal. The journal has a very specific outline for manuscripts: it should contain an
abstract, introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, conclusions, and
appendices, and it should be between 15 and 30 pages in length. In the abstract, the
author briefly discusses the purpose of the research, the results of the research, and major
conclusions of the research, all without exceeding 200 words. The introduction gives the
audience background on past research on the topic. The methods and materials section
describes the process that the author went through in collecting data, which the journal
specifies should be detailed so the work can be reproduced if desired. In the results
section, the author should clearly present their findings, before moving on to the
discussion section where they explore the significance of the results. Looking over
articles from this journal, some authors followed this structure exactly, and some adapted
12
it to their own needs depending on the type of research they performed. Many of the
articles used APA formatting and citation style as it is a journal geared towards the social
sciences. While most authors wrote with an academic and professional tone, some chose
to use a more conversational and narrative-like tone. After seeing examples of both of
these, I was inspired to use a combination of these approaches within my own article.
13
Student Perceptions of Peer Response in the Mainstream Mixed Population
Composition Classroom
Courtney Mazur
California State University, Sacramento
Abstract
Peer response has become a significant part of many college-level writing courses.
Research has shown that training students in how to respond to their peers helps them
give more effective feedback. One factor that is noted in the research is the population of
current composition courses; many mainstream composition courses have multilingual
students enrolled in them, making them more diverse. Using a teacher research/case study
approach, I interviewed 16 students from my Fall 2013 first-year composition course at
California State University, Sacramento about their perceptions of peer response. While
initially students indicated a lack of interest in getting feedback from their peers, later on
in interviews students indicated that they felt that peer response was helpful. Specifically
focusing on the mixed population of the course, when students were asked about their
perceptions of their peers based on their language background, the results varied from
language background not being a factor to it having a slight effect on their trust level with
that peer.
14
Introduction
Practicing a writing process is stressed in the majority of composition classrooms,
and receiving feedback from peers is considered a critical step of the writing process.
Research has shown that peer response not only helps the writer develop their own
writing, but also helps expose them to other students’ writing styles and strategies (Cho
& MacArthur, 2010). Seeing multiple writing styles can encourage responders to develop
their own voice and find new strategies for their own writing. Despite these potential
benefits, some students may be skeptical of feedback from peers and would prefer
feedback from instructors or tutors who they see as experts. These negative opinions
could be a factor in students’ perceptions of their abilities to give quality feedback,
especially multilingual students who, because they are operating in multiple languages,
might be self-conscious of their abilities to begin with. The conflict over whether to
integrate peer response in composition classrooms becomes even more complicated when
considering the context of a mixed population of native and multilingual speakers. My
research explores how both native speaker and multilingual writers feel in the situation of
peer response and, more specifically, how these students feel while responding to their
peers’ writing in a mixed population composition classroom.
There are some concerns that research in peer response mainly focuses on groups
of the same proficiency, but little research has been done on mixed proficiencies despite
the fact that this is becoming a common population in the post-secondary setting.
Researchers Kimberly Costino and Sunny Hyon (2007) examined the effects that
placement in a writing course had on English as a Second Language (ESL) students’
15
perceptions of their identity. Many students do not consider that their experience in the
classroom may be different than those from a different linguistic background.
Furthermore, many multilingual students “…saw [the term] ESL student[s] as indicating
weak language ability…” (p.71). It could be argued that multilingual students, in an
attempt to separate themselves from the negative connotation associated with second
language (L2) learners, avoid classes tailored for them in favor of mainstream classes.
Some participants in Costino and Hyon’s research even “…expressed that they would
rather take the mainstream class over the multilingual class not because it would help
them linguistically but because it spoke to the strong language ability they already had”
(p.74). Despite this, research done by George Braine (1996) indicates that L2 students
prefer to enroll in ESL composition courses over mainstream courses. In Braine’s study
of the students who chose to take the designated ESL courses, many said it was because
they would not be “…self-conscious of their accents, thereby gaining more confidence to
ask questions of the teacher and to take part in class discussions” (p. 97). ESL and
multilingual students want to feel safe in their learning environment and being in a class
with students who have similar proficiency levels is more reassuring. However, ESL
populations have changed since Braine’s 1996 study, “…multilingual sections have
mainly international and immigrant students, they also enroll interested U.S. born
bilingual students. Similarly, the so-called ‘mainstream’ sections have a number of both
U.S. born and bilingual and immigrant students” (Costino & Hyon, 2007, p.66). This
becomes even more significant in regards to the populations of composition courses as
the number of US born multilingual students continues to grow. The dynamic of
16
multilingual and mainstream classes has changed just as much as the populations of these
courses. With all of this in mind, it is even more necessary to consider the effect these
mixed composition classrooms have on the interaction between these diverse students,
specifically in a peer response environment. Since peer response is focused on giving
advice to a fellow peer, in the case of a mixed population class, this may prove to be
challenging or intimidating for students with various linguistic backgrounds.
One strategy that research emphasizes is providing students with training on how
to respond to peers’ drafts. This training could help students get a clear picture of what is
expected of them during peer response so they can more adequately provide feedback. E.
Catherine Berg (1990) investigated the effect that peer response training had on both the
types of feedback given and the ESL students’ written products. This is a significant topic
in the approach to multilingual students’ responding to native speaker students in the
mixed population composition classroom because if all the students are trained in what
the expectations are for peer response, all students have a common understanding of the
key role they play in each other’s writing process. Berg ultimately found that the peer
response training lead to a greater improvement of revised drafts (1990). This process of
peer response training—modeling—is essential because without it “Rather than seeing
writing as something that develops over time, the students’ focus on finding mistakes,
and fixing them seems to problematize writing” (Nelson & Carson, 1998, p. 128).
Focusing too much on surface level errors is a common issue with many students who
have not been trained in peer response.
17
Much like Berg’s landmark study, Joanne Crossman and Stacy Kite’s (2012)
study on facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review gives
a current view of how to integrate the activity in the classroom. The researchers observed
a mixed group of native and nonnative speakers enrolled in a business communications
course while completing their Masters in Business program. Students were guided on
how to give feedback to their peers and then were given rubrics to provide feedback. The
researchers found “there was a significant improvement from the initial draft to the final
submission” (p. 225). In addition, responders mostly focused on areas of content,
including focus, support, and organization. This study showed that “…critically assessing
a peer’s work can cause students to assess their own work more critically. Directed peer
review (following a rubric) is also beneficial to students who have limited subject-matter
and writing skills, whether or not they work with more capable peers” (p. 220). With the
proper guidance of how to respond, students can not only effectively respond to their
peers, but also apply this knowledge to their own writing, which is the ultimate goal. The
potential benefits of peer response not only help these writers with the assignment that
they are currently completing, but also help the writer progress their own skills which
they can apply to future writing situations.
Since peer response is generally considered a valuable tool in the writing
classroom, there are many scholars that support the use of it. Supporters of peer response
indicate that, “Teachers should provide L2 students with opportunities to talk about their
essays with their peers, as peer reviews seem to allow students to explore and negotiate
their ideas as well as to develop a sense of audience” (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994, p.
18
766). This negotiation that occurs in a peer response session helps students develop their
ideas but it also helps them develop their overall sense of identity as a writer. Enhancing
their sense of audience awareness is critical for peer response sessions; students can
directly apply a developed sense of audience to future courses or writing situations to
more successfully convey their message to the intended audience. The integration of peer
response in the mixed population composition classrooms, however, can be problematic
because of the different ways students communicate. While miscommunications can
happen in any classroom, research suggests there is a higher chance this can occur when
mixing different cultural and linguistic groups.
Since finding the right balance between giving constructive feedback and
criticism in comments to peers is difficult, many students can become frustrated with the
whole process. In their study, Gayle Nelson and Joan Carson explored students’
perceptions of the effectiveness of peer response groups. The participants in the study
preferred comments from the teacher on their drafts rather than from peers (Nelson &
Carson, 1998). This is not an uncommon feeling, because after all, the instructor is the
one that will be giving the students a grade, but getting feedback from a peer can be less
intimidating than getting feedback from an instructor. One benefit of getting responses
from peers is that, “…students may understand and respond to peer feedback better than
to expert feedback” (Cho & MacArthur, 2010, p. 335). Another reason the use of peer
response in a multilingual classroom is debated is because non-native speakers are not
only developing their writing skills, they are also still acquiring the language at the same
time (Nelson & Carson, 1998). Nelson and Carson indicated through their research, “The
19
writers lamented that many of the problems their peers pointed out were on the word or
sentence level and were not very helpful in terms of helping them say what they wanted
to say in their papers” (1998, p. 128).
A similar study done by Zhu (2001) focused on the interaction and feedback in
mixed peer response groups. In this study, Zhu argued that ESL students can effectively
peer respond, but the instructor might need to set up certain expectations when using peer
response (e.g. not interrupting, using peer response scripts for written feedback as well as
oral, etc.). In regards to the groups taking turns while responding, he found “…that each
ESL writer consistently took fewer turns than the native English speaker writer in the
same group” (p. 262). He also found that ESL responders tended to get interrupted more
while giving feedback than non-native speaker peer responders. There could be many
factors contributing to this, including the confidence level of the student or even cultural
beliefs. When looking at the specific feedback given, “native speakers tended to provide
suggestions more directly through advising while non-native speakers tended to point out
(announcing) and imply (questioning) problematic areas” (p. 268). Ultimately Zhu found
that “Native speakers wrote comments such as ‘Very good,’ ‘Run-on sentences,’ and ‘A
couple of sentence fragments.’ In contrast, none of the non-native speakers provided
evaluative feedback…” (p. 268). While this shows that ESL students are less confident
with peer response, there was a critical aspect missing when reviewing this research
because students “…did not receive additional training on peer response” (p. 256).
Proper training can be a factor in confidence level since it helps give the students ideas to
use when giving their peers feedback.
20
An issue that is prevalent in research on peer response in the writing classroom is
students’ attitudes toward the activity; research has focused specifically on the attitude
towards feedback from their peers. Amy Tsui and Maria Ng’s (2000) study focused on
whether or not L2 students benefit from comments made by peers. One of the students in
the study said, “’I turn a deaf ear to their (peers') comments…They have no authority, so
their comments aren't of much quality’'' (p.164) while another student claimed, “’the
teacher's English is better’ and that she could ‘locate more problems' on his compositions
than his peers” (p.165). While the students indicated that they did not incorporate all of
their teacher’s feedback, this shows a lack of faith in the peer response process on the
part of the students. Even though there was doubt about feedback provided by peers,
overall the participants “…found it [peer response] beneficial to obtain input from more
than one person and to work collaboratively in discussing each other's work, explaining
their writing to each other, and helping each other to improve their writing in the peer
response sessions” (p.166).
Past research indicates that while peer response seems to be beneficial overall,
students (specifically multilingual students) may have negative perceptions of peer
response due to their past experiences. Whether this is due to students’ lack of belief in
their or their peers’ abilities or lack of preparation to give feedback, it is clear that more
information needs to be gathered from students to get their perceptions on this crucial
classroom activity. In my research, I explore the following questions:
1. What peer response training methods helped students most?
21
2. Does the language background of the writer or the language background of the
responder affect students’ perceptions about the peer response feedback
received?
Methods and Materials
This study measures students’ feelings towards peer response. This research
utilizes both teacher research and case study methodologies. The population for this
research was 16 students from my Fall 2013 English 1A course at California State
University, Sacramento (Participant demographics in Appendix A). All 25 students were
given the opportunity to participate in the research near the beginning of the semester but
participation was optional and students who chose to participate were not compensated.
Conducting research in my own class helps to understand the complete context of the
setting (e.g. knowing the students’ needs, strengths, and weaknesses). Also, because this
is a case study, the target number of participants is smaller than if the research had been
done in multiple classes. The limitations of the research should be noted here, the results
of the study may not be able to be generalized to other student populations due to the
small sample of participants. The limited amount of participants ensures that this study is
an in-depth analysis of students’ outlooks about peer response. Eight of the participants
were native speaker students and eight were multilingual students. The language of the
multilingual students varied including Spanish, Hindi, German, Punjabi, Russian,
Korean, and Moldavian.
On the first day of the semester all students were given a “Writing Skills
Questionnaire” (Appendix B) in which they were to assess their personal strengths and
weaknesses as a writer on many different writing aspects. The questionnaires of the
22
participants that agreed to be a part of the study were then separated from nonparticipants. Participants’ responses from the “Feedback” section of the questionnaire
were then input into a spreadsheet to create charts based on the data. After agreeing to
partake in the research, all participants were given a survey (Appendix C) about their
background, including language background and past experiences with peer response. In
addition to learning students’ linguistic backgrounds, it was important to learn their initial
perceptions of peer response before completing peer response activities and workshops in
class.
Before students completed their first peer response session, I assigned students to
read Richard Straub’s “Responding—Really Responding—to Other Students’ Writing” to
help students learn how to give effective feedback. In this article, students learned what
tone to use within their written comments when giving feedback (supportive, not too
critical) as well as what aspects to focus on when providing feedback (content rather than
surface features such as grammar). After reading and discussing this article in class,
students were then assigned the “Peer response practice” activity (Appendix D). This
activity was created using a draft of a research paper that I wrote as an undergraduate.
This activity is a way for students to practice giving feedback on a neutral piece of
writing (i.e. not their writing). In order to ensure that students were giving appropriate
feedback, I collected this activity and gave students feedback on the comments they made
throughout the activity. The purpose of this was to give students an idea of whether or not
their feedback was comprehensive and appropriate.
23
As the semester progressed, participants gave feedback to classmates on each
major writing assignment throughout the semester. The peer response sessions required
students to give feedback to three peers, and along with reading those three drafts,
students were required to complete the peer response workshop script for each draft
(sample workshop script in Appendix E). This workshop was started in class, where
students switched drafts with three of their peers and shared their concerns about their
own draft to give their peers specific aspects to focus on. Students then took their peers’
drafts home with them and completed the workshop as homework. The next class period
students returned drafts with marginal comments and the completed workshop script,
including a 500-word peer response letter. After students received feedback, they were to
read their peers’ feedback and utilize their peers’ comments during their revision process.
When I collected students’ writing assignments, I also collected the peer response drafts
and letters that they received from their peers. I read through the feedback to see what
suggestions they had received and kept these in mind when reading the students’ revised
drafts. To reflect the importance of peer response as a part of the writing process, the peer
response activity made up thirty percent of the total possible score for each writing
assignment.
Lastly, I conducted interviews with the participants (see Appendix F for interview
questions) during student conferences, which took place halfway through the semester
and after their second peer response workshop. In the interviews, I gained insight to their
thoughts about the peer response workshops they had done for the first and second
writing assignments.
24
Results and Discussion
The following results are categorized by element: writing skills questionnaire,
initial survey, peer response activities, and interviews with participants.
Writing Skills Questionnaires
The results for the writing skills questionnaire were often very similar between
the two populations. Below is a description and analysis of each of the questions from the
feedback section of the writing skills questionnaire.
Figure 1: Do you enjoy sharing drafts with peers?
8
Number of Participants
7
6
5
Yes
4
No
3
Sort Of
2
1
0
Multilingual
Native Speaker
The first question from the feedback section of the questionnaire was: “Do you enjoy
sharing your drafts with a group of your peers?” Both multilingual students (MLS) and
native speaker students (NSS) had the same amount of participants that indicated that
they do not enjoy sharing drafts with their peers. More MLS were inclined to say that
they did enjoy it where as NSS leaned somewhere in between by answering “sort of.”
25
This data suggests that both groups have their reservations about sharing their writing
with peers. The equal distribution of “no” from both groups could be explained by the
students’ lack of trust in their peers and overall dislike of working with peers, regardless
of language background. Since more MLS indicated they do enjoy sharing their drafts
with peers, this may suggest that they want feedback on their writing. Other NSS
indicated they “sort of” enjoyed sharing drafts, potentially indicating that they had little
interest in getting feedback from their peers.
Figure 2: Can you listen to peers reactions to your writing?
8
Number of Participants
7
6
5
Yes
4
Sort Of
3
2
1
0
Multilingual
Native Speaker
The second question from the feedback section of the questionnaire was: “Can you listen
to the reactions of readers and try to see your work as they see it—even if you don’t
necessarily agree with their reaction?” The data from this chart is identical for both MLS
and NSS. Many students indicated “yes” to being able to listen to reactions that readers
had about their drafts. Further research in this area might provide more evidence that
26
students are more open to their peers’ feedback. Also no student answered “no,”
potentially furthering the idea that they are more open to peers responses.
Figure 3: Can you give noncritical feedback to your peers?
8
Number of Participants
7
6
5
Yes
4
Sort Of
3
2
1
0
Multilingual
Native Speaker
The third question from the feedback section of the questionnaire was: “Can you give
noncritical feedback—telling the writer what you like and summarizing or reflecting on
what you hear them saying?” Again there is no difference between the two groups in this
data. This data suggests that students are willing to give their peers non-critical feedback
like summarizing the writer’s draft and/or complementing the draft. Giving non-critical
feedback may have received such a strong result due to the fact that this type of feedback
is easier to give and less intimidating to the writer.
27
Figure 4: Can you give criterion-based feedback to your peers?
The fourth question from the feedback section of the questionnaire was: “Can you give
criterion-based feedback—telling the writer how the draft matches up with the
assignment’s rubric?” The results from this question varied between the two groups. The
MLS either answered “yes” or “sort of” and half of the NNS answered “yes”; the other
half were split among the other options. These results could indicate a lack of confidence
in students’ own abilities to assess other students’ writing: this was reinforced in current
research discussed earlier. One point to note is that no MLS students said “no” to this
question, indicating that they either could or mostly could give criterion-based feedback.
This could be due to the fact that they are following a rubric that helps guide their
feedback, which can be a very effective strategy. Looking at the NSS, half were less
confident in this area, potentially highlighting an idea that comes up later during
interviews regarding students not considering themselves “experts.”
28
Figure 5: Can you tell peers what they need to improve on?
8
Number of Participants
7
6
5
Yes
4
No
3
Sort Of
2
1
0
Multilingual
Native Speaker
The final question from the feedback section of the questionnaire was: “Do you feel
comfortable telling a peer what they need to improve in their writing?” Both groups
overwhelmingly agreed with this question and said they would feel comfortable giving a
peer feedback on what aspects need to be improved/revised. This data suggests that
students feel more open about providing feedback to their peers.
Overall the results from this questionnaire seem to indicate that there are many
similarities between multilingual students and native speaker students and their
perceptions of various peer response related issues. The data strongly suggests that
students are hesitant to share their own writing with their peers. While many students felt
comfortable giving non-critical feedback, some were less comfortable giving criterion
based feedback. This data suggests that while students feel comfortable giving feedback
to their peers they do not necessarily want to get feedback from their peers. Again this
could be due to the perception students have about not being “experts” in the field. This
29
could support the use of peer response training before giving feedback to peers. In the
training the instructor could teach the difference between both non-critical and criterion
based feedback, and model the use of both on a sample draft.
Initial Surveys
In the initial surveys, I received demographic information on the participants
including their college level, how long they have lived in the U.S., what they consider to
be their first language, how they use languages other than English (who they speak with,
if they write in their other language(s), etc.). Many of the multilingual students were born
in the U.S. (commonly known as generation 1.5 students) with a select few moving to the
U.S. when they were younger (ranging from 8 years old to 15 years old). Most of the
multilingual students cited that they primarily spoke the language other than English
rather than wrote in it. They also said that they mostly used this language at home with
their parents; some even said they needed to translate for their parents at times. Two
multilingual students cited that they used it at their place of work to communicate with
coworkers or customers.
The survey also asked about students’ past experiences with peer response. Many
students had experienced peer response before in previous English courses, mostly at the
high school level. There were 3 students who cited that they had never done peer
response. Of those that had done peer response, they indicated that they usually
exchanged drafts with a peer during class, read through the draft, wrote on the draft, and
then gave it back to the student. Many students said that the focus during these peer
response sessions was often on addressing grammatical features. This survey information
30
suggests that students may not be prepared to give the level of feedback expected due to
lack of experience with and preparation for the activity. This supports the call for training
to be done before students start giving feedback on their peers’ drafts.
Peer Response Activities
There were various activities and assignments related to peer response throughout
the semester. The first included students reading Richard Straub’s article and then doing a
mock peer response on a sample piece of writing (Appendix D) where they implemented
the strategies that Straub discussed. When I collected the students’ peer response practice
activities, I looked for ways that they were implementing Straub’s strategies, including
giving marginal comments, writing an end note letter to the writer, and having the right
balance in tone in their comments to the writer (supportive, not too harsh). Looking at the
participants’ practice activities, both MLS and NSS adequately gave marginal comments
throughout the draft, including making suggestions and asking the writer questions. MLS
excelled at giving endnote comments and almost all were very thorough in demonstrating
their understanding of the text and gave suggestions to help the writer develop their
writing. The endnote comments or letter to the writer was where NSS struggled; their
summaries of the drafts were very brief and they often gave little to no suggestions. MLS
used a very supportive tone and sometimes hedged their comments to make them seem
optional; for example, “You might want to revise your introduction because…” NSS
struggled with finding an appropriate tone to their comments, although Straub stresses
that the responder should not see themselves as the instructors, but there were many
instances in which NSS were too authoritative. For example, some NSS would cross out
31
the words on the draft and rewrite sentences. These results are interesting given that
current research suggests that MLS are less confident in giving feedback to their peers;
given this practice activity, they were more prepared to give useful and appropriate
feedback to their peers. Although it could be argued that the frequent use of hedging
comments could be an indication of lack of confidence, given the materials used to train
students, it seems more logical that they used this as a strategy to utilize an appropriate
tone.
As the semester progressed, there was a peer response workshop for every major
writing assignment (sample workshop in Appendix E). The workshop required both in
and out of class work and while this workshop is extensive, research discussed earlier
supports that students gain insight from reading their peers drafts. While many students
found these workshops to be a lot of work, many also found them very beneficial. When I
collected students’ writing assignments, I also collected all of the peer response related
aspects leading up to the revised draft (the workshop scripts from all three of their peers
as well as the drafts their peers commented on). There was a significant amount of
improvement from the practice peer response activity feedback in comparison to the first
writing assignment feedback. MLS continued to give thorough feedback and used an
appropriate tone with their peers. Specifically, MLS often exceeded the word requirement
for the peer response letter and gave specific details as to what aspect they were
commenting on and how the writer might improve it. NSS did better with using an
appropriate tone and most developed their response skills based off the comments and
suggestions I made, although some still struggled giving thorough feedback and
32
suggestions. Looking at NSS feedback, some were still being too authoritative and telling
their peers that something was wrong rather than utilizing suggestions to hedge their
criticisms. I continued to give students comments about their feedback to their peers to
further their development as responders for the coming writing assignments. When I read
through students’ revised drafts of their writing assignments I was surprised to see that
many NSS did not incorporate much of their peers’ feedback into their subsequent drafts.
As for the MLS, many had made the effort to include some of their peers’ comments and
suggestions. The improvement in comments from the peer response practice activity to
the workshops shows the need for using some type of peer response training. If students
had not received such training they would have “practiced” on their peers first writing
assignment and students might not have received effective feedback. As for students not
capitalizing on feedback from their peers’, this could go back to the results from the
survey where students were willing to give feedback to their peers but did not necessarily
want feedback from their peers. This finding could also point to a need for greater
training in how to use feedback during the revision process.
Interviews
As I conducted interviews with students, I was surprised at the answers I received
compared to the previous data discussed. When asked about what they thought about the
peer response, many students thought that peer response workshops were helpful to them.
One student said, “I really liked it, the suggestions people gave were helpful, they pointed
out things that I didn’t notice” (MLS 4). MLS 2 stated, “At first I thought it would be a
lot of work then it really helped me write my paper so I thought it was worth it.” Peer
33
response also seemed to have a positive effect on students’ motivation towards revision:
“If it wasn’t for peer response, I probably wouldn’t have revised” (MLS 3). The field of
composition stresses revision as part of the writing process, and peer response seems to
be a catalyst for this to occur with students, especially students who might not be used to
practicing a multi-step writing process. One student found that she greatly benefited from
giving feedback to peers, “I got more ideas by reading theirs and having to give them
suggestions” (NSS 6). While the response was mostly positive, not all students had a
positive response: “...sometimes it felt like people just did it because it was the
requirement, so if they didn’t care, I didn’t get as good of feedback” (NNS 7). A MLS
supported this further by saying the peer response workshops, “seemed a bit tedious at
times” (MLS 1). The fourth part of the workshop script, creating a 500-word letter to the
writer, seemed to be the most challenging for students. The peer response workshops
arguably demanded more writing of the students than most of the writing assignments in
the course, but this can be justified because peer response workshops are beneficial to
students in both their roles as a reader—getting input of other students’ writing—and as a
writer—getting feedback on their own writing.
Peer response is not the easiest of activities as it is a very specific rhetorical
situation. Students are expected to critically read their peers’ drafts and give them
suggestions while not being too harsh in the process. When asked what was the most
difficult part of giving feedback to their peers, many said that maintaining an appropriate
tone while responding was difficult. For instance, “Trying to balance the positive and the
negative because sometimes you want to be positive and sometimes you want to be
34
critical—it also depended on what you had to work with” (NSS 7). Peer response is a
generative activity to get students used to formulating an appropriate conversation to
have about how the writer can improve; the key is to find the balance between being
critical and respectful. Another NSS stressed that the most difficult part was “Criticizing
peers because you don’t want to disrespect them and I’m not an expert, sometimes it’s
hard to find the line” (NSS 5). MLS also seemed to struggle with this aspect, as one MLS
stated, “Finding the middle ground of being too critical and too nice” (MLS 6). This also
seemed to be an issue later in the semester, students became more comfortable with each
other and even started making friendships, which could either be problematic or helpful
when responding to their friends’ drafts. Regardless of this potential issue, students’ role
during peer response is to give feedback on their peers’ drafts; this role should be
thoroughly discussed during peer response training.
There were a few resources that students found helpful when getting ready to
respond to their peers. One NSS found the practice peer response to be beneficial
because, “It made me more comfortable in my own ability and the feedback on our
feedback [instructor feedback on comments] reiterated what I needed help with” (NSS 6).
A MLS noted, “Getting feedback on our feedback was helpful, it gave me an idea of what
was expected and what to look for” (MLS 3). It seems that giving students a chance to
practice giving feedback is beneficial and, in addition, it may be crucial to give students
an idea of if they are on the right track in regards to their comments to peers. In addition
to the practice peer response, many students found Richard Straub’s article
“Responding—Really Responding—to Other Students’ Writing” helpful in learning how
35
to be an effective peer responder: “The Straub article gave me a good idea on criticizing
people if you do it in an appropriate way” (NSS 5). Another student appreciated the
Straub article because, “…[it] showed me that it’s not just about pointing out what’s
wrong you need to explain why” (MLS 7). One student simply stated the article “…was
like a blue print of how to give feedback”(NSS 1). Based on these student reflections, the
Straub article proves to be a useful tool to help students understand their role during peer
response because it gives students strategies they can directly implement during the peer
response activity.
Peer response can be a stressful situation for students in both their roles as
responder and writer. Resources and practice can help students in feeling more
comfortable with giving feedback to their peers, but the ability to trust peers’ feedback is
not something that can be explicitly taught. I was surprised when I noticed that there were
times where students had not fully capitalized on their peers’ feedback in their revisions.
One reason for this could be that students seemed to be conscious of the amount of effort
their peers put into the activity: “Sometimes you can tell if someone didn’t care but most
of the feedback I got was great” (NSS 5). This may be due to the perceived quality of the
response they received, “If it seemed like they put a lot of effort in it I did [incorporate it]
but some didn’t always give enough to do anything with” (NSS 1). Thus, if it seemed like
their peer did not put much effort into the response, they could not implement the
feedback as well as others that were more thorough. While the peer response workshops
were allotted points within the rubric of the assignment, there were some students who
did not give in-depth response. This could be due to lack of confidence in their ability or
36
lack of motivation on the students’ part. One student expressed confidence in their peers’
feedback: “English was never my strongest subject, so hearing feedback from an outsider
and getting a different perspective really helps me” (NSS 3). A MLS noted that they
trusted peer feedback because “…they seemed to trust mine and we had similar goals”
(MLS 7). While research does indicate that many students do not trust their peers, a
stronger trust could be gained from the “normalizing” training that students go through as
they all complete the same assignments and activities leading up to the workshops.
When participants were asked if their language background or the language
background of their responder affected their perceptions about the feedback they
received, it did not seem to influence their perception of their peers’ feedback. One
student frankly said, “No, because just by reading their feedback I would lose a bet if I
tried to guess who was multilingual” (NSS 2). Another NSS said that, “I would say that
there weren’t really any language barriers. I had two multilingual writers that gave great
feedback, and I read their drafts too and they write very well. I didn’t notice anyone who
was hindered by their language” (NSS 7). These perceptions by native speakers are
interesting because they show a degree of trust and acceptance of multilingual students in
the mixed population composition classroom, which is a positive indication of sense of
community that can be built utilizing peer related activities. Even some multilingual
students did not seem fazed by the mixed population of the class: “…most people in our
class are really fluent in English. My first language is Hindi, but I speak English
perfectly, I might have an accent but it doesn’t affect my writing” (MLS 2). While the
language background of their peer did not seem to affect most of the students’
37
perceptions, there were some students who expressed a preference towards native speaker
responders for various reasons. One MLS noted, “If English was their first language, I
was confident in their feedback more because I saw them as more of an expert” (MLS 7).
This is not surprising given the research presented in the first section about multilingual
students and their perceptions of “experts.” An NSS expressed concern, saying, “…with
other language writers I would probably be more cautious about what they said about
sentence structure, other than that I would trust their opinion” (NSS 6). The first response
is expected coming from multilingual student responders because they are under the
impression that native speaker students are “more qualified” than they are, even though
this is not the case, especially since all students were trained in the same way. The second
response is troublesome given that the emphasis at the peer response level should be on
higher order concerns instead of surface features such as grammar. Focusing on higher
order concerns is crucial because it helps the writer develop their writing rather than
targeting surface features that should be addressed at the end of the writer’s process after
the writing is revised.
While some of the interview responses seemed to contradict previous research
presented in this study, like the writing skills questionnaires, there was still some
interesting insight gathered from these participants. One potential explanation for this
change is that interviews were done with the instructor who has shown an interest in and
enthusiasm for peer response; therefore, they may have been trying to appeal to the
instructor during this interview. Another potential explanation for this change in attitude
38
towards peer response could be the increase in students’ comfort level with the activity
due to training and practice.
Conclusions
In order to help students feel more comfortable with the idea of responding to
peers’ writing, there are a few strategies that should be used to help students feel more
prepared when implementing peer response activities in the classroom: discussing peer
response related readings, practicing responding before performing peer response, using
workshop scripts, providing rubrics for students to focus on, and providing marginal and
terminal comments on peer drafts. It is important for peer responders, both native speaker
and multilingual students, to know that that the focus of peer response is not editing
sentence structure but rather reading the content of the paper as a whole, especially when
responding to an early draft of a paper. Stressing that editing should be addressed at the
end of the writing process could possibly help ease some nerves of multilingual students
who do not feel as confident with grammatical features. Also, the potential for expanding
on one’s knowledge through peer response with someone of a different background can
be invaluable as the responder may have different strategies or suggestions that the writer
might not have known.
Ultimately there is no denying that peer response is a valuable tool to use in the
composition classroom. The experience I had in my class confirms that training on how
to give feedback to peers is beneficial. Specifically, I would recommend using an activity
where students can practice the task they will be asked to do throughout the semester. By
using a practice activity, the instructor can see the students’ responses before they give
39
feedback and guide students towards using an appropriate tone and highlighting areas of
focus, which will lead to a greater amount of trust between peers. As mentioned earlier,
the population of composition classrooms is growing more diverse. While current
researchers are concerned about this mixed population, based off my small sample,
language background did not seem to have a significant effect on students’ perceptions of
their peers’ abilities; rather, students’ perceptions of their own abilities and confidence
level was more of a factor. However, instructors need to be mindful of their students’
attitudes throughout the process in order to tailor their classroom to be a beneficial and
collaborative environment. My proposal to help students feel the most comfortable and
prepared is to provide training in peer response to help set the expectations early on in the
course and to give them common goals to reach during the feedback process. This will
ultimately result in students trusting not only their peers’ feedback, but their ability to
provide constructive evaluations of written work.
40
Appendix A: Participant Codes and Demographic Information
Multilingual students (MLS)
Code
MLS 1
Languages spoken
English, German
Sex
Male
MLS 2
English, Hindi
Male
MLS 3
English, Spanish
Female
MLS 4
Female
MLS 5
English, Moldavian,
Russian
English, Spanish
MLS 6
English, Korean
Female
MLS 7
English, Punjabi
Male
MLS 8
English, Spanish
Female
Male
College level
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
Native speaker students (NSS)
Code
NSS 1
Languages spoken
English
Sex
Male
NSS 2
English
Male
NSS 3
English
Female
NSS 4
English
Female
NSS 5
English
Male
NSS 6
English
Female
NSS 7
English
Male
NSS 8
English
Female
College level
First semester
freshman
Second semester
freshman
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
sophomore
First semester
freshman
First semester
freshman
First semester
sophomore
41
Appendix B: Writing Skills Questionnaire
Writing Skills Questionnaire: Assessing Your Personal Strengths and Weaknesses
Below are a series of questions designed to help you see more clearly what you can
already do well and what is still hard for you as a writer. Answer the questions by
checking the appropriate box for how you currently self-assess each of these areas of
writing.
Attitudes toward Writing
Questions
Yes
No
Sort of
Unsure
Yes
No
Sort of
Unsure
Do you enjoy
writing?
In general, do you
trust yourself as a
person who can find
good words, ideas,
and perceptions?
Do you think of
yourself as a writer?
Generating
Questions
Can you freewrite—
that is, can you put
down your words and
thoughts as they
come to you and put
your whole attention
on those words and
thoughts and not on
questions of whether
they are right or
correct?
Can you use private
writing to figure out
what you think or
feel about a given
subject or figure out
what you ought to
write about?
42
On a topic that
doesn’t interest you
can you nonetheless
generate a lot of
ideas and words
fairly quickly and
easily?
Can you come up
with ideas or insights
that you have never
thought of before?
Revising
Questions
Can you read
through a messy
draft and find a main
point to build on?
Can you revise in the
literal sense: “resee”—to rethink and
change your mind
about major things
you have written in
your paper?
Can you adjust what
you have written to
fit the needs of a
particular reader?
Can you find
problems in your
reasoning or logic
and straighten them
out?
Can you revise your
sentences so they are
clear to readers on a
first reading?
Yes
No
Sort of
Unsure
43
Editing
Questions
Can you find and get
rid of most mistakes
in grammar, spelling,
and punctuation?
Can you get rid of
virtually all such
mistakes?
Collaboration
Questions
Can you work on a
task collaboratively
with a partner or a
small group?
Yes
No
Sort of
Unsure
Yes
No
Sort of
Unsure
Yes
No
Sort of
Unsure
Feedback
Questions
Do you enjoy sharing
your drafts with a
group of your peers?
Can you listen to the
reactions of readers
and try to see your
work as they see it—
even if you don’t
necessarily agree
with their reaction?
Can you give
noncritical
feedback—telling the
writer what you like
and summarizing or
reflecting on what
you hear them
saying?
44
Can you give
criterion-based
feedback—telling the
writer how the draft
matches up with the
assignment’s rubric?
Do you feel
comfortable telling a
peer what they need
to improve in their
writing?
Awareness and Control of Writing Process
Questions
Yes
No
Can you give a
detailed description
of what was going on
while you were
writing—a story of
your writing process?
Do you notice when
you encounter
problems or get
“stuck” in your
writing and can you
figure out how to get
past these moments
by figuring out their
causes?
Can you vary the
way you go about
writing depending on
the topic, audience,
and type of writing?
Sort of
Unsure
Adapted from Being a Writer
by Peter Elbow and Pat
Belanoff
45
Appendix C: Initial Survey
Name:_________________________________________
College level: first semester freshman
second semester freshman
first semester sophomore
second semester sophomore other:__________
How long have you lived in the US? _____________________________________
What do you consider to be your first language?
Do you speak in another language(s)? If so what language(s)? How often? In what
situations do you use it?
Do you read in another language(s)? If so what language(s)? How often? In what
situations do you use it?
Do you write in another language(s)? If so what language(s)? How often? In what
situations do you use it?
When have you done peer response (giving feedback to other students on their writing)
activities?
How were these activities structured? What did you do during them?
46
Appendix D: Peer Response Practice Activity
Peer response practice
Below is a draft of a research paper. For this exercise, you will practice focusing on
revision aspects as well as using the strategies that Richard Straub discussed in his article
“Responding-really, responding- to other students writing". It is important to consider the
context of the writing you are responding to including: the prompt the writer is
responding to and the stage of the draft.
As you read and apply the strategies from Straub you should give marginal comments as
you read. In addition to writing marginal comments as you go you will also write a peer
response letter to the writer in which you address all of the following:
-Things you felt were going well in the draft and why you thought they were effective
-Things you feel still need to be developed further and suggestions you have for the writer
in revising these aspects
-Does the writer completely addressing the prompt- if they are not point to aspects that
are missing
-Discuss the what higher order concerns (or aspects of revision) need work in the
writer’s next draft as well as suggestions of how they might do this
(Letter requirements: 1 page, typed, single spaced, 12 pt font)
Prompt for Controversial issue research paper:
There are many controversial topics in communities today, some may affect many
people whereas some may only affect a few people but no matter how many people the
topics effect they always seem spark a lot of conversation between people. In this
research paper, you will enter the conversation on a controversial topic. You will select
a controversial issue interesting to you, that is affecting a community and investigate
the controversy behind it, present current research related to the issue, and propose a
solution for the issue based off the research you will present. You must use a minimum
of 6 sources in this 6-8 page paper. You should not let the research you found over take
your own analysis of the research; rather you should present the research then discuss
your own analysis of it and how it related to your own solution for the issue.
Animal Hoarding: A Severe Mental Health Issue Affecting Many Communities
Many people have heard of hoarding, possibly from the popular television show
Hoarders (A&E), in which the shocking images of trash and clutter packed to the ceilings
47
of a hoarders’ home horrify the audience and make them feel as if their mess is not so
bad. Animal hoarding is similar to hoarding and often times they intercross with one
another. The definition of animal hoarding, according to The Hoarding of Animals
Research Consortium is having “more than the typical number of companion animals and
inability to provide minimal standards (nutrition, sanitation, shelter, and veterinary
care).” These conditions go along with the key part of animal hoarding which is the
“denial of the inability to provide minimum care.” An animal hoarder is often
misinterpreted as a “crazy cat lady” and is a lonely widowed older woman who just has a
lot of cats. The reality is that animal hoarders don’t have to be women, elderly, or even
hoard just cats. There are cases in which men are the hoarders, young people, and even
professional career minded workers. Although cats are the most common victim they are
not always the victims; other animals are at risk as well: dogs, birds, small mammals, and
sometimes even horses. Animal hoarding should be considered a mental illness but the
offenders of this act should’nt simply get to plead insanity and get slapped with a few
therapy visits; they should have to participate in stricter observations by authorities and
pay back their debt to the community either monetarily or through service and they
should never be allowed to have animals again.
The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) did a case study that
included 71 hoarding cases. Thy found that 83.1 percent of animal hoarders were women
and 16.9 percent were men. The median ages of the hoarders in this study was 55 years
in women and 53 years in men. In the study, the number of animals ranged from 10 to
918 in the hoarders’ homes. The most common animal in the study was cats that were
48
involved in 81.7 percent of the 71 cases followed by dog at 55 percent involvement. The
study found that 71.8 percent of the hoarders were single, widowed, or divorced. In the
area of the hoarders’ employment status 55 percent were described as unemployed,
retired, and/or disabled. “Despite evidence supporting this stereotype of a low-income,
older, single female; hoarders may also be male, any age, and may come from a variety
of socioeconomic backgrounds, including the health professions” (Patronek 2001).
While there is a common stereotype that elderly women are the main scapegoat of animal
hoarding, evidence is present that they are not the only offenders.
The hoarders feel that they are saving these animals from the fate of the horrors of
shelter life and possibly being euthanized. The harsh reality is that the animals are dying
a slower and more agonizing death in the hoarding environment. The animals involved
in these cases are often extremely neglected and emaciated.The animals are still at risk
because of their deteriorating health conditions or severe behavioral problems due to lack
of socialization.
Animal hoarding cases are often categorized as passive cruelty rather than active
cruelty (Tremayne 2005). Passive cruelty is when the crime is a lack of action rather than
performing the action. Active cruelty is when a malicious intent is aimed towards the
animal and the person has deliberately and intentionally caused harm to the animal.
Some argue that prosecution of animal hoarders isn’t the best answer because hoarders
are often emotionally troubled rather than criminally inclined.
In conclusion, animal hoarding is serious issue that can happen anywhere, “This
public health problem is believed to occur in every community but is poorly understood,”
49
(Patronek 1999). The problem is that these hoarders rarely leave their homes and
therefore no on knows what is going on in their house. If their are any family members
they usually enable this behavior. The consequences to these offenders is not harsh
enough either. They should not simply get slapped with a fine, instead they should have
go through therapy and really analyze why they did this and learn form their behavior
rather than just go back to their old ways.
50
Sources Cited
Johnson, Becky McKay. "Animal Hoarding: Beyond the Crazy Cat Lady." Journal of
Agricultural & Food Information 9.4 (2008): 374-381. Academic Search Premier.
EBSCO. 23 Apr. 2010.
Patronek, Gary J. "Animal hoarding: Its roots and recognition." Veterinary Medicine
101.8 (2006): 520-530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 21 Apr. 2010.
Nathanson, Jane N. "Animal Hoarding: Slipping Into the Darkness of Comorbid Animal
and Self-Neglect." Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 21.4 (2009): 307-324. Academic
Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Apr. 2010.
Tremayne, Jessica. "Can you identify animal hoarders?." DVM: The Newsmagazine of
Veterinary Medicine 36.2 (2005): 12-13. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 18 Apr.
2010.
The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium. 2004. 18 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/>.
51
Appendix E: Sample Peer Response Workshop Script
Writing Assignment 1 peer response workshop
Reader:_________________________ Writer:___________________________
PART 1
This section is dedicated to take notes during your conference with the writer. Take
note of what the writer struggled with in their draft and what they would like you to
focus on while reading their draft. You should also write down any questions you
have for the writer in this section & get them answered. The section below is
designated for you to take notes to help you respond to their draft outside of class:
PART 2
Read through the writer’s draft and make marginal comments. Complete the
following tasks on the writer’s draft:
□ Indicate at least 2 areas where you think the author could expand on a particular idea or
point
□ Indicate at least 2 areas that are unclear or hard to understand
□ Indicate at least 2 “highlights” of this draft – something that you really like or that you
think is very effective
PART 3
Read through the marginal comments you made in part 2 and makes notes in each
of the sections below (these notes will help you write your peer response letter):
Introduction
Does the introduction grab the reader’s attention? If not, what suggestions do you have
for the writer? Does the introduction state a clear purpose for the draft? What is the
purpose? Does the writer include a clear thesis statement? What is the writer’s thesis
statement?
52
Development
How does each point relate to the writer’s purpose? How does each point relate to the
ones immediately before and after it? How does one point develop from the previous and
relate back to the main idea? If it does not, make a note as to why and offer suggestions
for improvement.
Organization
Does each idea transition naturally to the next? Mark the areas where it does not
transition naturally and if not, offer suggestions for how the writer can more effectively
transition between paragraphs. How is the development of each idea structured? Is the
assignment formatted for the genre assigned?
Voice/Tone
Is the voice and tone appropriate for the genre of the assignment? Is the voice and tone
appropriate for the intended audience(s)? Where is this seen in the draft?
Closing
Does the closing of the draft offer closure? How does the closing serve to link together
and complete the ideas of the rest of the draft?
PART 4
Write a peer response letter to the writer, here are some suggestions of things to discuss
in your letter: things you felt were going well in the draft, things you feel still need to be
developed further, whether or not they are completely addressing the prompt-if they are
not point to aspects that are missing, address all of the authors concerns and questions
you took notes on for part 1, and offer suggestions you have for their draft. (Letter
requirements: typed, single spaced, 12 pt font, minimum 500 words- paste your word
count at the bottom of your letter).
53
Appendix F: Interview Questions
1. What did you think of the peer response sessions?
2. How did you benefit from the peer response sessions?
3. What was the most difficult part of giving feedback to your peers?
4. What resources provided or discussed made you most comfortable?
5. Did you trust feedback from your peers? Explain.
6. How much feedback from your peers did you incorporate into your revisions?
7. Does your language background or the language background of your responder affect
your perceptions about the feedback your received?
54
References
Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and
writing quality, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Braine, G. (1996). ESL students in first-year writing courses: ESL versus
mainstream classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 91-107.
Cho, K. & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing.
Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338.
Costino, K. A. & Hyon, S. (2007). “A class for students like me’’: Reconsidering
relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for
mainstream or multilingual composition. Journal of Second Language Writing,
16, 63-81.
Crossman, J. M. & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students
through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219–
229.
Nelson, G. & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer
response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
Straub, R. (2003). Responding- really responding- to other students’ writing. In The
Subject Is Writing: Essays by Teachers and Students. Ed. Wendy Bishop.
Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook-Heinemann,162-72.
Tsui, A. B.M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
55
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10, 251-276.
56
CHAPTER 4: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barron, R. (1991). What I wish I had known about peer-response groups but didn't. The
English Journal, 80, 24-34.
In this practical journal article, Richard Barron discusses ways he incorporates
peer response groups in the classroom. He stresses that modeling peer response is
crucial to give students clear guidelines. He gives multiple suggestions as to what
to use for modeling, including published models, past student work, and writing
the teacher has done. When Barron uses his own writing as a model, he said he
doesn’t “…stop with the ‘mock’ peer editing session. For the session to have
maximum benefit, I revise my draft using the students' comments” (p. 26). Lastly,
he goes over qualities of a successful response group, including tolerating and
respecting group members, working outside of class, keeping focus, presenting
alternatives— not ultimatums, and indicating strengths and weaknesses.
This article is full of useful approaches for using peer response groups. One
strategy that I found helpful was using a model that the teacher had written. I used
this approach in my own class in the practice peer response activity that I have
students complete. This gives students an authentic piece of writing that is neutral
(meaning another student did not write it). I also find that students are more
interested when they know that the instructor wrote it as opposed to just a general
model.
Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and
writing quality, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Berg investigates the effect that training students in how to peer respond
had on types of feedback given and ESL students’ written products. The
study was done at a six-level (beginning through advanced) universitybased intensive English program. The participants included 46 ESL
students (22 females and 24 males) from 19 different countries; none of
the participants had been in the United States longer than three months.
To analyze students’ writing, the researcher looked at the students’
revisions before and after they received peer response. Based on the
results of the study Berg concluded that training in peer response
accounted for more changes in students’ revised drafts. In addition to
this, students received higher scores on their writing after peer response
sessions.
57
This is a significant topic in how ESL students should respond to native
speaker students because if all the students are trained in what the
expectations are for peer response, there is at least a common
understanding of the role they play. Berg asserts, “…training appears to
account for greater writing improvement of revised drafts” (p. 230). It is
important for peer responders, both native and non-native speakers, to
know that that focus of peer response is not editing sentence structure but
rather reading the content of the paper as a whole, especially when
responding to first drafts of a paper. One methodological aspect that Berg
utilized was the way in which peer response took place in the first term.
Half of the participants were trained to participate in peer response
activities and the other half did not receive training. While I do not agree
with withholding training from students, this seems like a legitimate
method to test the hypothesis.
Braine, G. (1996). ESL students in first-year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream
classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 91-107.
Braine investigates whether ESL students preferred to enroll in mainstream or
ESL composition courses and their reasons why. The study included over 200
participants enrolled in both ESL and mainstream composition courses. In
addition to preferences, he also looked at how the students performed on the exit
exam for the course. The exit exam included a reading that was distributed a week
before; it was a two-hour timed exam. Braine concluded that ESL students
preferred to enroll in ESL courses because of a variety of factors, including
feeling more comfortable, feeling the instructor was more understanding, and
feeling less anxious about their accents. As for the exit exam, about 10% more
ESL students that were enrolled in the in ESL course passed over ESL students
enrolled in the mainstream course.
Braine’s study gives interesting perspectives on students’ perceptions of the
composition course that they enrolled in, as there are many multilingual students
enrolling in mainstream composition courses. This could be due to an increase in
generation 1.5 students, especially in California. One aspect of this research that
concerns me was some of the reasons that ESL students felt uncomfortable in
mainstream courses, including instructor insensitivity and conflicts with peers.
These are very concerning, and while designated ESL courses should be offered
in conjunction with mainstream courses, there should also be protocols in place
for students and faculty to make these students feel a part of the community.
Costino, K. A., & Hyon, S. (2007). “A class for students like me’’: Reconsidering
relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for
58
mainstream or multilingual composition. Journal of Second Language Writing,
16, 63-81.
There are some concerns that research in peer response mainly focuses on
groups of the same proficiency, but little research is done on groups of
mixed proficiency, even though such populations are becoming more
common in colleges and universities throughout the country. In this study,
the researchers examine the effects that placement in either an ESL or
mainstream writing classes had on ESL students’ perceptions of their
identity. One thing that the researchers note that could affect students’
perceptions was that the labels used to categorize students (e.g., native
English speaker, nonnative English speaker, English as a second language
speaker) all refer to the oral linguistic proficiency of the students and do
not discuss writing ability. The researchers advise departments to be
mindful of the terms used in course descriptions, and to consider
implementing directed self placement enrollment methods, where students
make an informed decision about which course to take.
The dynamic of multilingual and mainstream classes have changed as
have the populations of mainstream courses. Some participants in this
study even “…expressed that they would rather take the mainstream class
over the multilingual class, not because it would help them linguistically,
but because it spoke to the strong language ability they already had”
(p.74). With all of this in mind, it is even more necessary to consider the
effect these mixed writing classrooms have on the interaction between
native speaker and multilingual writers. In a peer response environment
specifically, in the case of a mixed population class, this may prove to be
challenging or intimidating for multilingual students because of their
perceptions of their own abilities when giving feedback to their peers.
Crossman, J. M. & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students
through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219–
229.
Crossman and Kite’s study on facilitating improved writing among
students through directed peer review gives a current view of how to
integrate the activity in the classroom. The researchers observed a mixed
group of native and nonnative speakers, all enrolled in a business
communications course while completing their Masters in Business
program. Students were guided on how to give feedback to their peers, and
then given rubrics to provide feedback. The researchers found that
59
students made significant improvements from first drafts after completing
peer response. In addition, responders mostly focused on areas of content,
including focus, support, and organization. This study showed that
“…critically assessing a peer’s work can cause students to assess their
own work more critically. Directed peer review (following a rubric) is also
beneficial to students who have limited subject-matter and writing skills,
whether or not they work with more capable peers” (p. 220).
This study gave an insight of peer response outside of the Composition
classroom. It is reassuring to know that even outside our discourse
communities, aspects that we value are practiced, like peer response. Peer
response is a very applicable activity for this population of students as
business majors must be ready and willing to collaborate with one another
when they enter the workforce. Training students how to engage in peer
response was also prevalent in this research. With the proper guidance,
students can not only effectively respond to their peers, but also apply this
to their own writing. The potential benefits of peer response not only helps
these writers with the assignment that they are completing currently, but
also help writers progress in their own abilities.
Ferris, D. R. & Hedgcock, J.S. (2005). Building a community of writers: Principles of
peer response. In Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. (pp.
223-259). Mahwah: Routledge.
In chapter six of Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Process, and
Practice, Ferris and Hedgcock explore the use of peer response in the ESL
composition classroom. The chapter focuses on current research regarding
peer response, including descriptions of student interactions in peer
response sessions, the effects of peer feedback on students’ revision, and
student opinions about peer feedback. Finally, the authors discuss ways to
successfully integrate peer response into a composition course. Some
suggestions include modeling the process, building peer response skills
progressively, structuring peer response, varying peer response activities,
and holding students accountable for feedback. Ferris and Hedgcock also
provide many sample workshop ideas throughout the chapter.
This text as a whole is a very useful tool when creating curriculum. This
chapter in particular was beneficial when creating my peer response
workshops and activities. One resource that I found especially helpful was
the logistical concerns near the end of the chapter. In this section, the
authors discuss issues that may come up during peer response, such as the
size of peer response groups, how students should exchange papers,
60
whether feedback should be oral or written, and time management in peer
response activities. Many of these are issues that experienced teachers can
navigate very easily but, being a novice teacher at the time, I found these
to be invaluable pieces of advice.
Freire, P. (1970). Chapter 2. In P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 57-74). New
York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Generally considered a critical landmark reading in the composition
community, Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed highlights the
oppressive nature of education. The purpose of this reading is to
emphasize issues in the educational power structure. The message is
conveyed when Freire focuses on the idea of “the banking concept of
education” where students are “’containers’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher”
(p. 58). This banking method not only leads to the complete oppression of
the students themselves, but also of their future potential as students.
Friere calls for teachers to “…abandon the educational goal of deposit
making and replace it with the posing of the problems of men in their
relations with the world” (p. 66).
This reading influences my personal teaching philosophy; I encourage
students to take an active part in their own learning in any class I teach.
Students are often asked to take leadership roles in my classes, like
leading class discussion or leading small workshops. Not only do students
feel more empowered when they are contributing to the conversation, but
they will also learn more because they are more actively involved in the
learning process. Creating this collaboration with my students is important
to me. I have strived to do this in every class I have taught and will do so
in every class I will teach in the future. This also links to using peer
response in the classroom because Freire encourages the use of problem
posing questions. During peer response training, I encouraged students to
ask their peers problem posing questions to help them develop their drafts.
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, 30-43.
Students have two roles during peer response: the receiver of feedback and
the giver of feedback. Many composition instructors realize that both of
these roles are beneficial to students. Researchers Lundstrom and Baker
wanted to know which of these roles was more effective in improving
61
students’ writing. The researchers had 91 students from writing classes at
the English Language Center at Birmingham Young University. The
students were split up into two groups: the givers and receivers. In order to
help control the setting, students responded to authentic sample texts from
students who had taken the class previously. The givers were to give
feedback and advice on the sample texts, while the receivers were to apply
feedback given and revise the sample text. Ultimately, the researchers
found that the givers of feedback benefited more than the receivers of
feedback and could apply the skill to improve their own writing.
This study investigates an interesting aspect of the peer response process;
looking at both the roles that students have in peer response helps give
insight into which is more beneficial to the students. While I would argue
that both roles are important to students, it is interesting to know that
students who read their peers’ drafts gained more than those that just
received feedback. This article highlights the fact that both responding and
receiving feedback are crucial for an effective peer response workshop.
Also this research seems to indicate that students may need help with
incorporating peer feedback into their revisions.
Mendonça, C. & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL
writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Mendonça and Johnson’s study investigates the way ESL students use
their peers’ comments in their revision and their perceptions of the
usefulness of peer reviews. The research found that five types of peer
response negotiation happened during these peer review sessions:
question, explanation, restatement, suggestion, and grammar correction. In
regards to incorporating feedback into their drafts, the researchers found
that “In 53% of the instances of revisions, students incorporated their
peers’ comments” (p. 758). During the post interviews, the participants
indicated that they found both their peers’ feedback and feedback from the
instructor to be helpful while revising their work.
The overwhelming amount of students incorporating peer feedback in this
study demonstrates that peer response can be effective for providing
writers with important advice for revising their writing. This article also
mentions ESL students’ positive reactions to peer response, which
strengthens the case for its use in the writing classroom. The researchers
utilized post interviews to get authentic responses from students about
their experiences during the peer response sessions; this can be a
beneficial method because survey answers can often be superficial, and
there is no chance to ask follow-up questions.
62
Nelson, G. & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer
response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
Nelson and Carson explore students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of
peer response groups. The participants for this study included eleven
students in an advanced ESL class. The members of the peer response
groups were all from different cultural backgrounds. The researchers
“conducted a microethnographic study of three peer response groups in an
ESL advanced composition class” (p. 116). The researchers videotaped
and transcribed the peer response group sessions, totaling 17 sessions. The
researchers also interviewed the participants while watching the tape of
their peer response to gather further information about the interactions
during peer response. Ultimately, the participants preferred the teacher
comments on their drafts over their peers’ comments.
This research article shows students’ attitudes towards peer response.
Preference of comments from the teacher rather than from peers is not an
uncommon feeling because students often feel that the instructor is more
qualified to give feedback. There was another issue that the researches
indicated through their research: “The writers lamented that many of the
problems their peers pointed out were on the word or sentence level and
were not very helpful in terms of helping them say what they wanted to
say in their papers” (p. 128). This is another case for why peer response
training is essential when incorporating the activity in the classroom, as
with proper training this issue could have been easily avoided. I find it
interesting that the researchers call this a “microethnographic study”,
possibly due to the size of the population studied. Despite the population
being small, they still gathered a lot of data in various ways.
Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, (pp. 33-40). New York, NY.
The purpose of this article is to propose a new way to look at the idea of
discourse communities in the composition classroom. In this article, Mary
Louise Pratt discusses the complex idea of contact zones. Pratt’s main
message is that the idea of a discourse community is inconsistent, because
“…only legitimate moves are actually named as part of the system, where
legitimacy is defined from the point of view of the party in authorityregardless of what other parties might see themselves as doing” (p. 38),
meaning that in order to be a member of the discourse community, a
person must interact the same way the community interacts; there is not
much room for individual perspectives or conflict. Pratt concluded that
contact zones will include “…ground rules for communication across lines
of difference and hierarchy that goes beyond politeness but maintains
63
mutual respect; a systematic approach to the all important concept of
cultural mediation” (p. 40). This is the basis for the conflict that follows
with contact zones but through this conflict comes meaning and
knowledge.
This is another reading that I draw upon when thinking of my teaching
style and philosophy. While I tend to think of this article as a discourse
communities-related text, this reading can be applied when thinking about
the situation of peer response because peer response is such an intimating
situation. Applying the idea of contact zones to the peer response situation
can help students see the value of their peers’ responses, even if they
disagree with them. Considering peer response as a contact zone can help
students “de-personalize” the situation.
Straub, R. (2003). Responding- really responding- to other students’ writing. In The
Subject Is Writing: Essays by Teachers and Students. Ed. Wendy Bishop.
Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook-Heinemann,162-72.
In this practical article, Richard Straub discusses students’ roles when
giving feedback to their peers. He explains that peer response is not about
breaking down the writing: “First, don't set out to seek and destroy all
errors and problems in the writing. You're not an editor. You're not a
teacher” (p.163). Straub then discusses the different types of comments
students can leave on their peers’ drafts, including marginal comments and
endnote comments. Lastly, he shares an example paper that has been given
feedback from peers.
This article is one of the resources that I use when training students how to
give feedback to their peers. It provides clear rules of what students should
and should not do when commenting on peer drafts. He writes like he is
talking directly to students; the casual tone that Straub uses seems to be
effective with students. I find that students find this article very helpful,
and it gives them a clear idea of what is expected of them during peer
response sessions.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Tsui and Ng’s study focuses on whether or not L2 students benefit from
comments made by peers. One of the students in the study said, “’I turn a
deaf ear to their (peers') comments…They have no authority, so their
64
comments aren't of much quality’''( p.164), while another student claimed,
“’the teacher's English is better’ and that she could ‘locate more problems'
on his compositions than his peers” ( p.165). While the students did
indicate that they did not incorporate all of their teacher’s feedback either,
this still shows a lack of faith in the peer response process on the part of
the students. While teachers can provide adequate training for how to
perform peer response and highlight the benefits of the activity, it is
ultimately up to the students to trust their peers and be open to the
feedback they receive. Even though there was doubt about feedback
provided by peers, overall the participants “…found it beneficial to obtain
input from more than one person and to work collaboratively in discussing
each other's work, explaining their writing to each other, and helping each
other to improve their writing in the peer response sessions” (p.166).
Research from this article shows that students do not trust their peers’
opinions on their writing, and therefore do not incorporate it into their
revisions. But, while there are negative perceptions of feedback received
from peers, students did not regularly incorporate comments made by the
instructor either. This tension between responders can potentially be fixed
if students are trained with the same methods and have similar goals to
meet during peer response.
Wantanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–Peer interaction between L2 learners of different
proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 64, 605-635.
This researcher explores how adult ESL learners interacted with peers of
different linguistic proficiency levels and how they each perceive the
interactions with their partners. The participants included 12 Japanese
learners in a non-credit ESL program. The researcher did not tell
participants of their partners’ proficiency levels prior to their paired work,
to avoid any bias they might have about their partners’ proficiency. After
analyzing the pattern of interaction between the partners, the researcher
noted that half of the groups had a collaborative communication pattern,
meaning it was a more balanced conversation. The other groups were a
mixture of dominant/passive, expert/passive, and expert/novice, meaning
that there was an imbalance in contribution to conversation. By the end of
the study, participants preferred to work with a partner who shared their
ideas regularly in conversation, regardless of their proficiency level.
While this study is mostly focused on peer-to-peer interaction between
second language learners, it is still interesting given the perceptions that
65
these students had about their partners. Getting these authentic interactions
and responses from students is important for the case study method of
research. Most interesting about this study was the pairing of students: a
high proficiency with a low proficiency. This could be interesting if
applied to peer response groups; for instance, making sure there is a
student who is a strong writer and a student who is struggling in the same
group to see the types of interactions and feedback they would give each
other.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the
ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
This study discusses the difference between ESL students’ preferences
regarding peer and teacher feedback. Zhang focuses on a few areas
regarding peer response in his study, including the differences between
peer feedback, self-reflection/feedback, and teacher feedback. The
participants of this study included 81 ESL students. After each type of
feedback was given to the students (teacher, peer, and self), students were
given a questionnaire asking usual classification information (gender,
ethnicity, etc.) along with questions about their preference in who to get
feedback from. The results indicated that 93.8% of participants chose
teacher feedback over peer feedback and 3.7% preferred peer feedback. As
for the second question regarding peer and self-directed feedback, 60.5%
preferred peer feedback, 34.6% chose self feedback, and 4.9% had no
preference (Zhang, 1995).
This study provides valuable insights into ESL students’ preferences for
types of feedback. While students overwhelmingly preferred teacher
feedback over peer feedback, the choice of receiving peer feedback over
giving feedback on their own writing is interesting. While many find
reading and responding to their peers to be difficult, it is often considered
more difficult to respond to one’s own writing. When assigning peer
response, instructors could emphasize that once they get more practice
responding to their peers’ drafts, this skill can transfer, and they eventually
might be able to critically read their own writing as their peers do.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10, 251-276.
Zhu’s study focuses on interaction and feedback in mixed peer response
groups. In this study, Zhu argues that ESL students can effectively peer
respond, but the instructor might need to set up certain expectations when
66
using peer response (i.e. not interrupting, using peer response scripts for
written feedback as well as oral, etc.). In regards to the groups taking
turns while responding, he found “…that each ESL writer consistently
took fewer turns than the native English speaker writer in the same group”
(p. 262). He also found that ESL responders tended to get interrupted more
frequently while giving feedback than native speaker peer responders.
When looking at the specific feedback given, “native speakers tended to
provide suggestions more directly through advising while non-native
speakers tended to point out (announcing) and imply (questioning)
problematic areas” (p. 268).
This article brings an interesting perspective to the discussion of peer
response in that it compares the peer response strategies of ESL and native
speakers. This is interesting because there is much speculation on the
effectiveness of the use of peer response in the L2 classroom. This study
argues that ESL students can effectively peer respond, but the instructor
might need to set up certain expectations when using peer response. While
this shows less promise on the side of ESL students being good peer
responders, there was a critical aspect missing when reviewing this
research because students “…did not receive additional training on peer
response” (p. 256). Again this article supports the need for an emphasis on
how to peer respond, and perhaps even some modeling of the process
would help put the ESL students on a more even playing field.
67
APPENDIX A: HANDOUT FROM ORAL PRESENTATION
Sample peer response workshop script
As the semester progressed, students gave feedback to classmates on each major writing
assignment throughout the semester. The peer response sessions required students to give
feedback to three peers, and along with reading those three drafts; students were required
to complete the peer response workshop script for each draft. This workshop was started
in class, where students switched drafts with three of their peers and shared their
concerns about their own draft to give their peers specific aspects to focus on. Students
then took their peers’ drafts home with them and completed the workshop as homework.
Writing Assignment 1 peer response workshop
Reader:________________________ Writer:___________________________
PART 1
This section is dedicated to take notes during your conference with the writer. Take
note of what the writer struggled with in their draft and what they would like you to
focus on while reading their draft. You should also write down any questions you
have for the writer in this section & get them answered. The section below is
designated for you to take notes to help you respond to their draft outside of class:
PART 2
Read through the writer’s draft and make marginal comments. Complete the
following tasks on the writer’s draft:
□ Indicate at least 2 areas where you think the author could expand on a particular idea or
point
□ Indicate at least 2 areas that are unclear or hard to understand
□ Indicate at least 2 “highlights” of this draft – something that you really like or that you
think is very effective
PART 3
68
Read through the marginal comments you made in part 2 and makes notes in each
of the sections below (these notes will help you write your peer response letter):
Introduction
Does the introduction grab the reader’s attention? If not, what suggestions do you have
for the writer? Does the introduction state a clear purpose for the draft? What is the
purpose? Does the writer include a clear thesis statement? What is the writer’s thesis
statement?
Development
How does each point relate to the writer’s purpose? How does each point relate to the
ones immediately before and after it? How does one point develop from the previous and
relate back to the main idea? If it does not, make a note as to why and offer suggestions
for improvement.
Organization
Does each idea transition naturally to the next? Mark the areas where it does not
transition naturally and if not, offer suggestions for how the writer can more effectively
transition between paragraphs. How is the development of each idea structured? Is the
assignment formatted for the genre assigned?
Voice/Tone
Is the voice and tone appropriate for the genre of the assignment? Is the voice and tone
appropriate for the intended audience(s)? Where is this seen in the draft?
Closing
Does the closing of the draft offer closure? How does the closing serve to link together
and complete the ideas of the rest of the draft?
PART 4
Write a peer response letter to the writer, here are some suggestions of things to discuss
in your letter: things you felt were going well in the draft, things you feel still need to be
developed further, whether or not they are completely addressing the prompt-if they are
not point to aspects that are missing, address all of the authors concerns and questions
you took notes on for part 1, and offer suggestions you have for their draft. (Letter
requirements: typed, single spaced, 12 pt font, minimum 500 words- paste your word
count at the bottom of your letter).