Collaboration and Writing: More than Exchanging Words

PDF(213 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2014, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (1) : 35-66.

Articles

Collaboration and Writing: More than Exchanging Words

Kara Grace REED

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Second language writing courses need to remain open to the value of peer review and consider the writing gains beyond what students can obtain from a teacher and from their own review process. The mixed method design of this study divides students in peer review and self review groups to avoid putting students in paradigm of comparing feedback from a teacher versus from a peer. The overarching finding is that the value of peer review came from the collabor- ative process, with students achieving through discussion what was not achieved in solitary. Students who were actively engaged in peer review often did not take the exact advice of their peers, but the process of exchanging feedback prompted them to transform their ideas that they then incorporated into their revisions whereas self reviewing students maintained their original trajectory of thought. Additionally, results indicate that students gained from the reviewing process differently depending on their proficiencies. A final key finding is that students were more likely to make effective local changes when peer reviewing than self reviewing, regardless of the “correctness” of the comments. The analysis brings insights to ownership of ideas and development of concepts in the peer review process within a Vygotskian framework of concept formation.

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Kara Grace REED. Collaboration and Writing: More than Exchanging Words[J]. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. 2014, 24(1): 35-66

References

Beaven, M. H. (1977). Individualized goal setting, self-evaluation, and peer-evaluation. In C. P. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing(pp. 136-156). Buffalo, New York: National Council of Teachers of English.
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.
Berger, V. (1990). The effects of peer and self feedback.The CATESOL Journal, 3, 21-35.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.”College English, 46(7), 635-652.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner—A question of style.Education & Training, 41(6/7), 294-304.
Chaudron, C. (1984). Effects of feedback on student’s composition revision. RELC, 15(2), 1-14.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student process of their feedback on their compositions. In
1. Wenden & J.Ruben (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning(pp.57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
Daiute C., Campbell C., Griffin T., Reddy M., & Tivnan T. (1993). Young authors’ interactions with peers and a teacher: Toward a developmentally sensitive sociocultural literacy theory.New Directions for Child Develop- ment, 61, 41-63.
de Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision.The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work.Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58.
Dong T., Anderson R. C., Lin T.-J., & Wu X. (2009). Concurrent student-managed discussion in a large class.International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 352-367.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teadcher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process.College Writing, 39(4), 449-461.
Gabriele, A. J., & Montecinos, C. (2001). Collaborating with a skilled peer: The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners’ competence on the participation and learning of low-achieving students.The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 152-178.
Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups—history, theory and implications.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hopkins, A. (1990). Reviews, academic writing: Process and product.English Language Teaching Journal, 44(3), 239-241.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China.Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers.Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students.Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing.Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Jackson, J. (2004). Case-based teaching in a bilingual context: Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong.English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 213-232.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 739-761.
Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of english proficiency: A Japanese context.TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39.
Karegianes M. L., Pascarella E. T., & Pflaum S. W. (1980). The Effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students.The Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 203-207.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness.Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.
Lamberg, W. (1980). Self provided and peer-provided feedback.College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 63-69.
Langer, S., & Applebee, A. (1987). How Writing Shapes Thinking. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes.Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-221.
Liu J.,& Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response.ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227.
Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters?Language Testing, 19, 246-276.
Lundstrom, K. &. (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.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESP students(pp. 134-145). White Plains, New York: Longman.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?ELT Journal, 49(3), 274-278.
Miao Y., Badger R., & Yu Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in Chinese EFL writing class.Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200.
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
Min, H.-T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training.English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285-305.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
Neff, P. (2006). Peer review in ESL/EFL writing courses: A look at five studies. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 9(2), 345-371.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student.TESOL Journal, 2, 23-26.
Parker, R. P. (1972). Focus in the teaching of writing: On process or product? The English Journal, 61(9), 1328-1333.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Petrosky, A., & Brozick, J. (1979). A model for teaching writing based upon current knowledge of the composing process.The English Journal, 68(1), 96-101.
Schultz, J. (2000). Computer and collaborative writing in foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language learning: Concepts and practice (pp. 121-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class.Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457-480.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks.Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.
Swain M., Brooks L., & Tocalli-Beller A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.
Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing.Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1991). Genesis of the higher mental functions. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (Eds.). Learning to think(pp. 32-41). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class.Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.