Comparing Written-Only and Written-Plus-Spoken Peer Feedback in a Japanese EFL University Context

PDF(566 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2012, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (1) : 1-24.

Articles

Comparing Written-Only and Written-Plus-Spoken Peer Feedback in a Japanese EFL University Context

Keiko HIROSE

Author information +

History +

Abstract

This classroom-based study examines how Japanese EFL university students with no previous peer feedback (PF) experience perceived English paragraph writing instruction with the addition of two types of PF: written-only and written-plus-spoken feedback. Over a 13-week semester, one group of students received English writing instruction with written-only PF, whereas the other group received the instruction with written-plus-spoken PF. Specifically, the study compared the two groups’ perceptions of PF, attitudes towards English writing, and writing improvement. In each class session, students exchanged writing assignments with new partners and participated—using English—in PF sessions during pair work. Afterwards, they also received teacher feedback on their writing. The results found no significant differences in student perceptions between the two groups except that those who experienced multi-modal feedback enjoyed writing feedback more and felt it easier to write English at the end of the course than those who only provided/received written feedback. Although the effects of neither type of instruction were great enough to significantly improve student abilities or boost confidence in English writing, those who experienced written-only PF showed some positive improvement on subsequent writing. Possible directions for future L2 writing research and instruction are suggested.

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Keiko HIROSE. Comparing Written-Only and Written-Plus-Spoken Peer Feedback in a Japanese EFL University Context[J]. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. 2012, 22(1): 1-24

References

Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach: A study of peer feedback in Hong Kong writing classes.Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 13, 269-288.
Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction.Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.
Coomber, M., & Silver, R. (2010). The effect of anonymity in peer review. In A.
M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings(pp.621-626). Tokyo: JALT.
Hirose, K. (2005). Product and process in the L1 and L2 writing of Japanese students of English. Hiroshima: Keisuisha.
Hosack, I. (2005). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes towards peer review. Ritsumeikan hogaku bessatsu, 297-322. Kyoto: Ritsumeikan University Law Association.
Jacobs H. L., Zinkgraf S. A., Wormuth D. R., Hartfiel V. F., & Hughey J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context.TESL Canada Journal, 23, 12-39.
Liu J.,& Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing class- rooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task.Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254.
Masaki, M. (1997). Peer feedback in a Japanese EFL writing classroom.The Bulletin of the Writing Research Group, JACET Kansai Chapter, 2, 43-54.
Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups.Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expos- itory writing.Language Learning, 46, 137-174.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2.Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sumida, A. (2010). Purosesu raitingu shidoho nitaisuru tankidaigakusei no ishiki: Sitsumonshi niyoru bunseki [College students’ perceptions of EFL process writing instruction: A survey analysis].Niigata Seiryo Daigaku Tankidaigakubu Kenkyuhokoku, 40, 157-164.
The Institute for International Business Communication (2010). TOEICR test data & analysis 2009. 2010). TOEICR test data & analysis 2009. http://www.toeic.or.jp/toeic/pdf/data/DAA2009.pdf.
Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 class- room: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior.Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class.Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.