Exploring How Peer Interaction Using Multimodal
Forums Influences ELLs’ Rhetorical Analysis
Learning: A Journey of Rhetorical Transformation
University of Maryland College Park
Abstract
Peer interaction has been widely discussed and applied in the instruction of second language
writing. In order to understand how the interaction among peers influences second language
writing in both the learning and the pedagogical perspectives in the college level, this study
aims to adopt the sociocultural theory with ecological perspective as a framework to provide
more qualitative and contextual in-depth information. Also, the ever increasing emphasis on,
and the advancement of, using technology in teaching becomes an imperative for the teaching
of writing to ELLs. This emphasis offers new opportunities for teachers and students to
construct new, interactive, and hybrid communities of writers and technologically advanced
classroom. This study focuses on Introduction to Academic Writing course of ELL
participants. It focuses on analyzing students’ composing practices and presentation, paying
particular attention to how the students draw on different modes -- affordances -- to make
meaning and to present their thoughts and arguments to their intended audience. With the
implementation of wiki, I anticipate that wikis use will improve students’ writing and
rhetorical capabilities as it will offer students opportunities for the development of student
rhetorical identities in ways that are not as prevalent in the traditional face-to-face classroom.
More specifically, I hope that the monologic and dialogic writing tasks that occur in wikis
will have important implications for student participation and motivation. What makes wikis
use for group collaboration even more effective is seeing how some students will go through
a process of transformation, as those students who are shy or reluctant to speak in class gain
another vehicle to feely present their thoughts, become more interactive, and even assume a
leadership role in presenting their ideas. Also, the goal of the study is to allow resear ch and
practice inform each other in ways that help develop pedagogical practices aimed at engaging
ELL writers in 21 st century academic literacy skills. Results from this study and the collected
data will hopefully initiate a community of inquiry, discussion about curriculum design,
reflection on teaching and researching, and making adjustments based on students’ feedback
and progress. By effectively interacting with the students, instruction and research will be
integrated into a dynamic learning process.
1. Introduction
With the recent shift from the cognitive to the sociocultural paradigm in both SLA and
writing studies shedding new light on second language (L2) writing and its relationship with context
(Block, 2003; Lantolf, 2006; Prior, 1998, 2006; Russell, 1997; van Lier, 2004), the necessity of
reconceptualizing writing strategies within the sociocultural framework is brought into prominence. In
response to this need, the present study aims to explore a sociocultural approach to writing strategy
research by drawing on ―affordances‖ from an ecological approach (van Lier, 2000).
With a sociocultural foundation, adopting a multimodal and multiliteracies approach to
teaching academic writing can help undergraduate ELLs improve their English writing and rhetorical
analysis skills by making them articulate to one another what they are doing as they write. Besides,
with the shift from individual acquisition to artifact mediated collaborative participation, using wikis in
teaching writing is a great opportunity to enhance students’ writing competency and to promote
collaboration, especially in group projects. In fact, this study focuses on analyzing the effectiveness in
using wikis in teaching English composition to encourage collaboration in a third, virtual space and at
the same time improve ELLs’ writing and rhetorical competency.
This study focuses on Introduction to Academic Writing course ELL participants. I, the
teacher and the researcher with a dual role, focus on analyzing students’ composing practices and
presentation, paying particular attention to how the students draw on different modes – affordances -to make meaning and to present their thoughts and arguments to their intended audience. I anticipate
wikis use will improve students’ writing and rhetorical capabilities as it will offer students
opportunities for the development of student rhetorical identities in ways that are not as prevalent in
the traditional face-to-face classroom. More specifically, I hope that the monologic and dialogic
writing tasks that occur in wikis will have important implications for student participation and
motivation. What makes using wikis even more effective is seeing how some students will go through
a process of transformation. I intend to see those students who are shy or reluctant to speak in class
gain another vehicle to feely present their thoughts, become more interactive, and even assume a
leadership role in presenting their ideas. And I hope to see how the in-class and wiki collaboration will
help improve ELLs’ writing.
2. Research Questions and Purpose
The purpose of this research is to examine and analyze the multimodal rhetorical practices of
second language (L2) writers in English 101X, Introduction to Academic Writing. The course focuses
on helping learners develop rhetorical and analytical capabilities. This is achieved through
instructional practices built around four major assignments. This research focuses specifically on one
of the assignments – the rhetorical analysis assignment. In this assignment students are asked to work
in groups to rhetorically analyze a text of their choice and present their work to the class. The nature of
the assignment encourages learners to draw on multimodal texts, such as a short video, an
advertisement, YouTube, or a picture, and to do a multimedia presentation. This research, through
sociocultural lenses and ecological approach, will focus on analyzing students’ texts, composing
practices and the presentation, paying particular attention to how the students use the wiki to
collaborate and interact to make meaning and to present their thoughts and arguments to their intended
audience as well as to embed supporting materials like videos or pictures to support their rhetorical
analysis. As a result, this study is manifested to focus on these research questions:
1. How does using multimodalities including new technological forums, wikis, provide students
with affordances and a space for collaboration and interaction to master a rhetorical analysis
of a text—even a multimedia text?
2. How does interaction and collaboration in different spaces—in class discussion, wiki
discussion—and using these mediation tools, affordances, facilitate and create the learning of
English rhetorical skills and terminology?
3. Literature Review
Sociocultural theory places emphasis on learning writing in the target language in order to
participate in and become a member of a particular community, or of many communities (Pavlenko &
Lantolf, 2000; Wenger, 1998). The role of peer interaction has been greatly researched in second
language acquisition and writing. Previous studies on interaction, however, have predominantly taken
a cognitive SLA perspective (Long, 1996; Pica, 1994); that interactions are a source for negotiation of
meaning, which may facilitate the development of L2 (Mackey & Gass, 2006). These studies have
given insight into the cognitive process of the individual learner. Nevertheless, they captured the
individual (L2 learner) in isolation, neglecting the interaction and collaboration existing between the
learners as learners become active agents in their learning process and the collective community
(Storch, 2002a). Recently, however, a growing number of studies have begun to invoke a Vygotskian
sociocultural theory for SLA (Lantolf, 2000, 2006), which views social interaction as a site for
knowledge construction. The most basic premise of sociocultural theory is that the human mind is
mediated (Lantolf, 2000).
Besides, attention has been paid to the many opportunities that computer mediated communication
(CMC) and information technology (IT) allow for second language (L2) learning (Carey 1999a,
1999b, 2001a, 2001b; Chapelle, 2001; Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Müller-Hartman, 2000; Murray,
2000; Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Lund (2008) discusses how wikis represent a particular type of
collaborative learning environment where collaboration can result in aggregated, collective products.
In this study, wikis are examined in a sociocultural perspective, in particular the notions of collective
zones of proximal development that we come to knowledge by taking part in activities where
individuals relate to a greater collective that evolves over time and where language and material
artifacts function as structural resources. The study shows that the wiki holds the potential for
collective knowledge advancement and rhetorical language development and competency.
Besides, there has been research on the effectiveness of interaction among peers in synchronous
and asynchronous mediums and its implication in mastering writing for ELLs. This study will add to
the evaluation of the hybrid classes. It will provide understandings to how the monologic and dialogic
writing tasks that happen while using wikis improve ELLs’ writing and rhetorical analysis.
4. Methodology
4.1
Participants
The participants will be first year students enrolled in English 101X Academic Writing class
limited to students for whom English is a second or foreign language, and offered at the University of
Maryland, College Park in the spring and fall of 2010. I have a dual role—the instructor and the
investigator.
4.2
Data Collection
1.
2.
3.
I collected data from the following sources:
Students’ posts on their assigned wiki spaces, multimodal mode, as a step to collaborate on
preparing for their rhetorical analysis presentation. Students are not held accountable to
grammar, spelling, or diction in order to facilitate their interaction in terms of rhetorically
analyzing the chosen text.
Observations and evaluations of students’ presentations.
Students’ responses to questions, evaluating the assignment, its effectiveness, and how wiki’s
inclusion helped or made it more difficult for the students to do the assigned task. This is
done by responding to a thread on the discussion board on elms. The questions which students
have to respond to after their presentation are provided in Appendix A.
5. Data Analysis
Themes and constructs were identified and data were coded based on. Revision of the
constructs and recoding of the data was repeated until a satisfactory framework was proposed to
explain the data. During this analysis process, participants’ interaction in their wiki spaces was
identified, described, and categorized as data were recursively examined.
This study draws on Swain’s (2000) work about collaborative dialogue as an important lens to
understand how ELLs work together to rhetorically analyze a text and co-construct rhetorical
knowledge. According to Swain, collaborative dialogue ―is knowledge –building dialogue. It is
dialogue that constructs linguistic knowledge. It is a dialogue in which speakers are engaged in
problem solving and knowledge building. It heightens the potential for exploration of the product‖
(Swain, 2000). Based on this work and others (Foster & Ohta, 2005), I apply Martin-Beltran’s (2009)
use of language related episode (LRE) as a unit of analysis to investigate discourse that may afford
rhetorical learning. However, I decided to modify this term LRE to accommodate the designed
assignment—rhetorical analysis assignment given to ELLs. The code I intend to use is rhetorical
language related episode (RLRE). According to Swain and Lapkin (1998), a language related episode
(LRE) is ―any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing,
question their language use, or correct themselves or others‖ (p. 326). In my study, however, the focus
is more specific-- on rhetorical language-- as I had to find moments when participants interacted and
engaged in a dialogue in their wiki space ―constituting a third space between oneself and the other as a
way of communal existence‖ to talk about the rhetorical language they are negotiating, coconstructing,
and
producing
when
analyzing
their
selected
multimedia
text.
With the rhetorical language relate episode (RLRE) as the focal point of, I focused on the
interactional dynamics between each group members in their dialogue to co-construct their rhetorical
analysis. I analyzed the type of interaction happening between each group members. I borrowed the
idea of ―initiating moves‖ and ―responsive moves‖ to look at my data where ―a move is a discourse
unit that represents the realization of a speech function‖ (Jones, 2006, pg. 4). Drawing from Halliday
(1994), Jones states that ―every utterance establishes a relationship between the person who is
speaking and the person who is probably going to speak next. The implicit interactivity in dialogue is
based on the fact that each of these speech functions positions both the speaker and the potential
respondent. Every time a speaker takes on a role, he or she assigns a role to the listener‖ (2006, pg. 4).
In fact:
Halliday divides speech functions into initiating moves and responding moves. Initiating
moves (statements, offers, questions, and commands) are those taken independently of an
initiating move by the other party; responding moves (such as acts of acknowledgement,
agreement, compliance, acceptance, and answering) are those taken in response to an
initiating move by the other party. Responses can be further divided into those that are
supportive (acceptance, compliance, acknowledgement) or confrontational (rejection, refusal,
contradiction). (Jones, 2006, pg. 4-5).
Based on this distinction, I counted and explained when students used ―initiating moves‖ and
―responsive moves‖ to help them create their RLRE and to co-construct the rhetorical task. I used to
the highlighted colors to distinguish the kind of move each member took.
6. Findings and Discussions:
By looking at one of the groups interaction on wiki provided below, I found that the student
who proposes the advertisement is initiating the discussion, or in other words making the ―initiating
move.‖ She does not only post the selected advertisement; she also lays down her rhetorical
interpretation and analysis while inviting responses from her group members. Besides, those who
engage in initiating moves do not step to the side and let other group members just provide the
responsive moves. In fact, each group member assumes a double role trying to co -construct the
intended rhetorical analysis and engage in their RLRE. the various moves among group members
imply that the conversation among the members keep going as all members go back and forth in their
discussion and co-constructing of their rhetorical analysis.
Group 1: Zhixi Zhan, Fenchao Du, Shaoxiong Jiang, and Zhaoyang Wei
last edited by Fenchao Du on Thursday, 04/08/2010 5:42 AM.
The presentation is going to talk about the environmental issues that are or will destory our world.
Useful Links:
<Yesterday> YouTube trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV5HMRQQfM
This is not the only issue that the movie is talking about. Another important issue is that how people
react such a big disaster as in the movie. More importantly, how the government to react to save
people's life and do something to make loss less. What we are going to present next Tuesday is first
about the environmental issue, which is protecting envrionment, and the implication behind the issue is
that the critism towards Bush administration. The second thing is what I discuss at first.
Zhixi Zhan
As Zhixi stated above, one of the important issues of The Day After Tomorrow is people's handling of
catastrophe. It means the way of living in the calamity, what we are going to do, or what we can do for
saving our lives. In segments of movie attached above we can see that mainly there are two kinds of
choice: moving to another cities, or staying in the building. Like what Jack's father, who is a
meterologist, told him that he and his friends should be in the building and use everything they found
to make heat, they decided to stay in the library and successfully passed the disaster. But most people
decided to leave and move to another place during the extreme weather, at last they lost their lives. I
think this told me that we need to believe the science when we are facing smoe difficulties.
Zhaoyang Wei
How are we going to assign the project into pieces?
Fenchao Du
Yea, Btw, is the ppt contains all the details that we are gonna present? or it's just a outline like the
handout?
Shaoxiong
Another issue that I want to add is that the movie also argues about the climate change issue
nowadays. Not only for protecting the environment, but also for the climate change issue, which is also
a very serious situation all around the world.
Zhixi Zhan
Good idea. According to our discuss today, we almost finished the whole presentation. please leave
your massage asap if anyone has trouble! Good luck tomorrow.
Shaoxiong
The handout was sent to Zhixi for printing and would be brought at noon. Good luck guys.
Fenchao Du
Group 2: Weitong Sun, Yujia Zhang, and Kai Cho Chu
last edited by Yujia Zhang on Monday, 04/05/2010 11:19 PM
-- posted by Yujia
The audience of this cartoon should be US citizens and permanent residents who will be affected by
the policies of the US government.
The author can be a Republican who is against Obama's policy, or someone who is not satisfied with
his financial action.
So many buckets mean Obama needs a lot money to perform its action.
There are logical fallacies in this cartoon. Hasty generalization appears as Obama might not ask for
money for all areas in the US. Exaggeration.
Pathos: the skinny cow and its pathetic looking attract the audience.
The US is in red ink. Deficit.
Ethos: The author has high reputation in the area of cartoons.
--Weitong Sun
The visual elements are:
Thin Cow - U.S. treasury on low budget
The Cow does not look happy to see president Obama
"Good Morning Sunshine" - Obama's hope to get lost of money out of the treasury
The buckets - The organization in the U.S. that wants the U.S. treasury's money
--Kai Cho Chen
The audience could also be the people who are in the organizations that the bucket represent. The
cartoon let them know that they are supported by a Thin U.S. Treasury base.
--Kai Cho Chen
I guess this cartoon is for people who want to voted for Obama.
When the election was going on, the economics in the USA was in the recession. At that time, people
wanted some actions taken by candidate. stimulate bill
Also, AIG, American Internal Group, was one of the causes of financial crisis in 2008-2009
President Obama announced that in order to support AIG, a small business loan program along with a
series of temporary tax incentives would be added.
However, US treasury consisted of tax, so this action would spend large amount of money that came
from tax.
This cow- US treasury was no doubt being thinner. And many companies, which suffered losses a lot
in the financial crisis, were eager to get help from US treasury.
-Yujia Zhang
I think the audience can also be people who does not want their tax money be use on companies that
they don't affiliated with.
Also, I think the author is trying to show that the U.S. treasury is not "fat" enough to support all the
needs of the companies.
--Kai Cho Chen
The expression in the cow's eye is very horrible. The US Treasury is afraid of being asked for more
money. Also, it suspects whether huge amount of money will help actually.
--Weitong Sun
logos: Obama called"good morning sunshine" to that cow, it seemed a tone of hope entered into his
voice. Milk from that cow was the only way to save these companies, and Obama based his hope on
the "milk"
The cartoon points out Obama's plan may be an extreme.
Yujia Zhang
Based on the different moves that reciprocally occurred, rhetorical knowledge co-constructing
comes as result of the interaction that happened as a result of the wiki space, the affordance which is ―a
particular property of the environment that is relevant to an active, perceiving organism in that
environment‖ (Van Lier). Wiki space as an affordance encourages a dialogue among participants. This
dialogue invites interaction and collaboration and as result problem solving and knowledge building.
7. Conclusion:
Providing multimodalities including new technological forums, wikis, provide students with
affordances and a space for collaboration and interaction to master a rhetorical analysis of a
multimedia text. The results of this study suggest that the wiki space along with other models of
communication like face to face can facilitate the co-construction of interaction and rhetorical
knowledge. With these resources students were not lost. In fact, they used these forums to creatively
conduct the assigned task and at the same time develop as learners, writers, analyzers, and critical
readers. However, it would be more interesting to focus on the future the difference between the moves
in wiki interaction and in face to face, in class discussion. It would be beneficial to see how students
would take these moves; if one type of move is more prevalent; and whether some students would
exert some control over the conversation and the dialogue, leading to less interaction and more
individual dominance.
When the assignment was introduced to students in class, it seemed as a foreign object
approaching them from outer space. Nevertheless, ELLS were not intimated by the complexity of the
assignment; rather English 101X students were able locate themselves, create their own space, and
even prove their presence as they became active, critical thinkers in the new American rhetorical,
intellectual community. Drawing from all of the sources available for them, these students collaborated
in analyzing, understanding, constituting rhetorical language related episodes (RLRE) and presenting
their work. They divided the work among them equally—division of labor—and all contributed and
adopted a leadership role. Even though the role of each member can be distinguished as ―initiator‖ or
―responsive,‖ none of them assumed the backseat as all wanted through collaboration to be part of the
leaning and intellectual transformation process. Their different modes of collaboration strengthened
them and boosted their confidence in how much they have achieved so far.
When asked about the effectiveness of involving wikis and multimodalities as part of the
assignment, many students praised this issue. One student wrote: ―[wiki] is a good tool. As our group
members are away from each other during the weekend, it helped us to communicate with each other.
Also, wikis allows us to edit whenever we have time, without setting a specific time to meet.‖ Another
student wrote evaluating the use of multiple modes—written, technological, and face to face
meetings—to prepare for this assignment: ―It's good. Especially for our group b ecause we used videos
on YouTube. I cant imaging how the presentation would be without these techs.‖
While the
assignment seemed challenging in the being, the interaction has made their job easier.
Limitations:
The study was done during only one semester. It revealed many shortcomings that I, as a
researcher and teacher, have to accommodate in future semesters as I continue collecting data. The
initial purpose of this assignment was based on the effectiveness of the involvement of multimodalities
in teaching composition classes with the emphasis on rhetorical skills. However, the rhetorical analysis
assignment which includes the perceived multimodalities or multiple modes—written, technological,
and face to face meetings— does not require students to submit any formal writing at the end. Students
are just asked to orally present their work and submit a handout of the main points—no rhetorical
analysis essay is required. So next semester, I plan to add this component to see how students’ writing
proficiency changed. Besides, with the focus on multimodality, I should have collected data not just
from students’ interactions on their wiki spaces; I should have also recorded or video taped their face
to face interactions in class to analyze the different interaction moves to see how face to face in class
interaction is different from virtual, synchronous interaction using wikis. These issues will be taken
care of next semester when further data collection is done.
Implications:
Although previous research has focused on the effectiveness of adding wikis as a forum in
teaching composition to ELLs, this study is a contribution to the literature on creating a hybrid
community and the role on interaction when using multimodalities and multiliteracies in teaching first
year second language writing. In fact, this study focuses on cultivating a third space, wiki, to promote
interaction. Student participants, most first time users of wikis, were able to cross borders and navigate
multimedia spaces to represent their rhetorical analysis and exploit all chances of rhetorical learning.
Even though many students still prefer the face-to-face interaction, wiki can be another space where
interaction and rhetorical learning and construction are not hampered or hindered by space, time, or
even
availability.
Appendix A
Evaluation/Response to Rhetorical Analysis Group Assignment
1. What are the most beneficial aspects of the assignment?
2. What are some of the drawbacks?
3. How did you feel about using wikis as part of the assignment?
 Is this your first time using wikis?
 Was it challenging to use it?
 In other words, did it make group collaboration easier or harder on
you?
4. How did you feel about using multiple modes—written, technological, and
face to face meetings—to prepare for this assignment?
5. How did this assignment help improve your writing skills?
6. If you had the chance to modify this assignment, what part would you change
and why?
References
Blake, R. (2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 27 , pp 76-97 17, 29–37.
Carey, S. (2001b). Principles for mixed mode classes using electronic bulletin boards for second language
acquisition. Journal of Applied Linguistics Association of Korea,
Chapelle, C.A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing
and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging culturalilliteracy through global
learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The
Modern Language Journal, 84, i, 51-68.
Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences.
TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.
Lam, E.W.S. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations.
Language Learning and Technology, 8(3),44–56.
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J.P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2 development: State-of-the-art. Studies in Second
Language
acquisition, 28, 67–109.
Lantolf, J.P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second
language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 141–
158). London:
Longman.
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in
writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217-236.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K.
Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–
468). New York: Academic Press.
Lund, A. (2008) Wikis: a collective approach to language production ReCALL 20(1): 35-54.
Mackey, A. (2006). From introspection, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing
research on interaction and learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 369–379.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169–178.
Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks.
Language Learning and Technology, 4(2), 129–147.
Murray, D.E. (2000). Changing technologies, changing literacy communities? Language Learning and
Technology, 4(2), 43–57.
Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 1, 171-193.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer responses groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising
their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141.
Ohta, A.S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal
development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language
Testing, 19, 277–295.
Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: a sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 22(4)
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions,
processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal
of Educational Research, 37, 305–322.
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities,
mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51-75.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 491-514.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their
Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635. Retrieved February
19, 2010
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27, 1-23.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing,
10, 251-276.