Table Of Content

In the Classroom/En classe Peer Reviews in a Hong Kong Tertiary Classroom Icy Lee Peer reviews are becoming increasingly popular in second language (L2) com position pedagogy. Thisarticledescribes theimplementationofpeerreviewsina Hong Kong tertiary classroom: the background, classroom procedure, types of students' negotiations during peerreviews, comparisons ofstudents' drafts be fore and after peerreviews, and interviews with students. The results, together with the students' positive comments on peer reviews, support the need to introducepeerreviewsinL2writinginstruction.Thearticleconcludeswithsome suggestionsaboutways toincorporatepeerreviewsinthewritingclassroom. Introduction Peer review is a process where students read drafts written bytheir fellow students and give each other suggestions to improve the writing. Peer review,however,differsfrom peerediting,peerevaluation,andpeerassessment in that the focus ofthe former is onthe review process, which includes not onlyediting,evaluating,andassessing,butalsorespondingtothecontentof theessayand howtheessayiswritten(Mangelsdorf, 1992).Students' atten tion is focused on how meaning is created in writing and on writing as a vehicle for communication, rather than writing as a formal product. Peer reviews,therefore,"supporttheshiftfromaproducttoaprocessemphasisin writinginstruction" (DiPardo& Freedman,1988,p.124).Suchatechniquein writingpedagogyisunderpinnedbywritingresearchtheoriesthatadvocate writingasaprocessofdraftingandredrafting,aswellaswritingasaprocess of communicating to a real audience. It is also in line with the goals of a learner-centered classroom, which promote the development of autonomy throughcollaborativelearning. Benefits ofPeerReviews TheusefulnessofpeerreviewasatechniqueforL1 writingpedagogyiswell documentedinthe literature (Barnes1976;Brief1984;Cazden1988;Forman & Cazden, 1985). There is also research evidence to point to the benefits of peer review in L2 writing instruction (Mendon<;a & Johnson, 1994; Mittan, 1989;Mangelsdorf,1992;Stanley,1992,Tipper& Malone,1995).Inthetradi tional classroom, writing is often done in isolation-the students write on 58 ICYLEE theirown,handintheproducttotheteacher,getwrittenfeedbackfromhim or her, and finally put aside the writing. This is followed by another cycle and the pattern persists. Peer review is a technique that reverses such a traditional approach to writing. Students may still start off by writing on theirown;however,oncethefirstdraftisdone,theygettheirpeerstoreadit and comment on it. Then they revise it, taking into account their peers' remarks. Writingbecomesmore purposefuland meaningfulas itis read by an authenticaudience (Mittan, 1989). Peerreviews reflectwriting as a truly communicative process rather than an artificial, lonely exercise where stu dents write for a pseudo-reader, the teacher, who reads students' essays predominantlyforassessmentpurposesratherthanforrealcommunication. Peer review is a useful technique for encouraging revision in writing. It provides a true incentive for students to revise their work. What is more directand relevantthana peersaying, "Thissentenceis notclearto me," or "1don'tunderstandthispart"?Exposingstudentwriterstoreaders,whoare theirfellowstudentsnotonlybroadenstheaudience,buthelpsdeveloptheir critical thinking skills-both as readers and writers. As readers, students read theirclassmates' drafts carefully,make judgments,andattempt to put across theirmessagesclearlysoas to help theirpeers. Aswriters, theyhave tolistentotheirpeers,judgetheusefulnessandrelevanceoftheircomments, and respond accordingly. The processenablesthe writers to reflectontheir own writing, clarify their thoughts, and come to a better understanding of the needs and expectations of the readers. Peer review provides the best means for writers to turn "writer-based prose" to "reader-based prose" (Flower,1979). Peer reviews also provide opportunities for collaborative learning. Stu dents in pairs or small groups can poolideas, and it is through interacting withothersthatstudentslearnanddevelop(Vygotsky,1978).Studentslearn to become more autonomous writers as theyare prepared to write without thehelpofateacher(Jacobs,1989).Throughcollaborativelearning,students cangainabetterunderstandingoftheirpeers' difficultiesinwriting,andas a result they may gain more confidence in themselves (Mittan, 1989). Peer reviews can boost confidence, make writing a more positive learning ac tivity,andhelpstudentsdevelopgreaterindependenceinwriting. ImplementingPeerReviews Background The peer reviews described in this article took place in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HKPU), where English is taught as a compulsory subject to all first.;.year and some second-year and final-year students who havebeenlearningEnglishfor atleast13years(6yearsprimary,and7years secondary).AlthoughCantoneseisthestudents' nativelanguage,Englishis TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 59 VOL.15,NO.1,WINTER1997 neithera foreign nora secondlanguage,butanauxiliarylanguage (Luke & Richards, 1982) which has a unique status in Hong Kong. The fact is that although English is an official language (apart from Chinese), it is not the languagefor socialcommunication. ThemajorityofstudentsinHongKong universities study their subjects through English, write their assignments, and taketheirexaminationsinEnglish(exceptthosewhomajorinChinese); however,themediumofinstructionisincreasinglymixedcode,thatis,both CantoneseandEnglish.WritinginEnglishtakesonaparticularlyimportant role in the tertiary context, because so much that students learn has to be tested and examined inEnglish. Writingis also importantin theworkplace becausemuchcorrespondenceiscarriedoutinEnglish.1 At the HKPU, however, there was no writing program, writing work shop, or writing clinic for students who had specific problems or needs in their academic writing.2 Writing is taught as part of EAP in the academic courses. The classroom described in this article consisted offour final-year studentsoftheBAinLanguageandCommunicationCourse.Thesestudents, three female and one male, aged 21-22, came to me for a one-hour weekly tutorialonEnglishcommunicationskills.Theyalltookapublicexamination before they entered the university, and their use of English results ranged fromCtoD(Ebeingthepassinggrade).Accordingtothestudents,theyhad noexperienceinpeerreviewsbefore,andwritingintheirprevioustwoyears ofstudieswastreatedasaone-offactivity.Thesestudentsappearedtometo be rather motivated learners, as they told me at the beginning of the academictermthattheytreasuredtheonehourofEnglisheachweek.Itwas thoughtthatthesmallgroupofrelativelymotivatedlearnersprovidedexcel lent opportunities to try peer reviews and to discover their usefulness as a pedagogicaltechniqueinthewritingclassroom. Classroom Procedure In thecoursestudentswere required to turnina numberofwrittenassign ments,includinganapplicationletter(andaCV),afilmorbookreview,and aprojectproposalorintroduction.Thestudentswroteafirst draftandwere told to bringitto the lesson. Theythen worked in pairs (a different partner eachtime) torevieweachother'sdraft. Apeerreviewsheetcontainingalist of guided questions (Mendon~a& Johnson, 1994) was given to students to helpfacilitatethereviewprocess(seeAppendix1).Thestudentsinpairsread eachother'sdraftandtookturnsreviewing.Thereviewswereallconducted in English, lasted 30 to 40 minutes, and were tape-recorded. After the peer review, the students redrafted their essay, taking into account the peer's comments. Altogetherfour drafts (pre- and post-peerreview) from two topics were collected.Thefirstessaywasanapplicationletter,andthesecondwasabook or film review of students' own choice. Before the end of the course each 60 ICYLEE studentwasinterviewedindividually(inEnglish)toelicittheirviewsofpeer reviews. All in all, three types ofdata were collected from the peer review process:(a)peernegotiations(generatedfromthepeerreviews),(b)students' written drafts, and (c) interviews with students. The three types of data wouldshedlighton: (a) thekinds ofnegotiations thatoccurredduringpeer reviews,(b)theeffectsofpeerreviewsonstudents'revisionactivities,and(c) students'viewsoftheusefulnessofpeerreviews. PeerReviewNegotiations Thepeernegotiationsweretranscribed,andacodingschemedeveloped(see Appendixes2A& 2B). Thecategoriesoftheschemewere mostlygenerated from the transcribed data, with some taken or adapted from the coding schemes by Mendon<;a and Johnson (1994) and Stanley (1992). The peer negotiations were divided into two categories-peer reviewers' responses and writers' responses. Seven types ofnegotiations were found in the peer reviewers'responses.Table1(seeAppendix1)showsthetypeandfrequency ofthe negotiations. The mostfrequent kinds ofnegotiation were suggesting (25%) and evaluating (23%), followed by praising (14%), request for explana tion/clarification (13%), explanation ofopinion (11%), comprehensioncheck (7%), and restatement (7%). (Examples of the categories drawn from students' draftsareincludedinAppendix2A.)Regardingthewriters'responses,eight types ofnegotiations werefound. Table 2 (see Appendix 1) shows the type and frequency of the negotiations. The most frequent was explanation of unclear point or content (41%), followed by accepting reviewer's remark (18%), eliciting (16%), justifying the draft (12%), announcing a problem (7%), restat ing/reinterpreting reviewer's remark (3%), comprehension check (2%), and dis agreeingwithreviewer'sremark(1%).Examplesofthesecategoriesdrawnfrom students' drafts are included in Appendix IB. It is interesting to note that grammarcorrectiondidnotatalloccurinthewriters' responses. The relatively high frequency of suggesting and evaluating by the reviewers indicates students' effortto helpeachotherimprovethe writing. Praisingoccurred relativelyfrequently, which stands in starkcontrastwith thetotalabsenceofgrammarcorrection.Itmaybethatstudentswerecaught in role conflicts "where they negotiate between the demands of the class roomandtherulesofpeerrelations" (Tipper& Malone,1995,p.78).Thatis, they had to resolve the conflicting roles of critic, collaborator, and peer. A moreplausibleexplanationisperhapscultural,thatis,studentsmightthink thattheyhadtobemodestandcourteoustoeachother(essenceofConfucian teaching),and hence theywere muchmore readyto praisethan to criticize. Although students did evaluate their partner's draft, the suggestions were generally neutral and not negative (e.g., I think you use quitealot ofdifficult words). Also, the writers tended to agree with the reviewers' comments. Nonetheless, the varietyofnegotiationtypes instudents' peerreviews sug- TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 61 VOL.15,NO.1,WINTER1997 gests that the peer review process can harness students' communicative power (Mittan, 1989). Peer reviews stimulate genuine communication, in volving students in practising an array ofskills such as reading (especially reading of a higher order, e.g., inferencing) and discussing (agreeing, dis agreeing,clarifying,questioning,etc.). Students' Revisions The drafts were compared to identify the nature of revisions made. Two patterns of revisions emerged from the comparisons of students' first and seconddrafts:(a)revisionsthatweregeneratedfromthepeerreview(R/PR); and (b) revisions thatwerenot generatedfrom thepeerreview (R/NPR). A third pattern was noted-nonrevisions despite input from the peer review (NR/PR),thatis,thewriterdidnotmakeanychangestoacertainpartofthe texteventhoughitwasdiscussedinthepeerreview.Altogether,20instances ofrevisions (12 R/PR; 8R/NPR) were revealed, and 6instances ofNR/PR were found. Table 3 (see Appendix 1) shows the type and frequency of revisionsfoundinstudents'essays.ExamplesofR/PR,R/NPR,andR/NPR from students' draftsareprovidedinAppendix3. Thenumberofrevisionsstudentsmadeasaresultofthecommentsofthe peersisencouraging,and reinforces thevalueofpeerreviewas animpetus forrevision.Itisusefultoprovidethewriterswithagenuinereaderwhocan tell them whatis not clearorwhat needs tobe further developed. Through explaining unclear points, justifying their own writing, and so forth, the writersbecomeclearerabouttheirideas.Itisequally,ifnotmore,encourag ingtoknowthatthestudentsalsorevisedtheirdraftseventhoughtheywere notpromptedbytheirpeers.Thisreinforcestheusefulnessofpeerreviewas atechniquetostimulaterevisioninwriting. Interviews with Students Interviews were held and transcribed to find out students' views of peer reviews. All four students who took part in the peerreviews said that they enjoyed the process because they could exchange ideas with each other through discussions. They also found it useful to have their drafts read by theirpeers.StudentAsaid,"Sometimes,therearesomeunclearpointsinmy essays, which cannot be detected by myself, but after being read by my partner, those unclearpoints are pointed out,and IcanclarifythemwhenI write the second draft." Three of the students thought that although the teacher tended to comment on language only, their peers could give them many ideas about how to improve the content. Also, students liked to let theirpeersreadtheirdraftsbecausetheircommentsweremoreencouraging than those of the teachers. Student B said, "They [peers] won't say your writingisbad." However,twoofthempointedoutthattheywerenotready 62 ICYLEE topointoutgrammaticalmistakes.StudentCsaid,"Myclassmatedidnottell meaboutthelanguage." StudentAexplainedbysaying, ButIdon'tfeelateasepointingoutmypartner'sgrammaticalmistakes becauseIdon'tknowwhethershelikesbeingcorrectedornot. Iam afraidthatmypartnerwouldfeelawkwardifIdidcommentonher grammaticalmistakes. StudentDthoughtthatitwasallrighttopointoutgrammaticalmistakesand itwas theattitude thatmattered: "Ithinkitis the wayorhowyou tellher." Student B suggested that they could give their drafts to more than one classmate.Althoughthefourstudentshadslightlydifferentopinionsofpeer review,theinterviewdatabyandlargecorroboratethefindingthatstudents tendednottobecritical,andtheydidnotfeelcomfortableofferingcomments ongrammar. Conclusions: Further Suggestions for PeerReview Lessons Inordertoincorporatepeerreviewseffectivelyintheclassroom,anumberof areas need to be addressed. The following reflections, I hope, can provide helpfulsuggestionsforteacherswhoareinterestedintryingpeerreviewsin theirclassrooms. Making the purpose explicit to students. Before peer reviews, it would be useful to letthe students know about the purpose ofthe exercise and what theyareexpectedtodo. Forexample,theteachercanspellouttheaimofthe exercise explicitly, reminding students ofthe importance to giveboth posi tiveand negativecomments. Orientingstudentsto thevalueofpeerreview isanimportantstep,asnotedbyTipperandMalone(1995),assuccessinpeer reviewslargelydependsonstudents' attitudesandvalues(p.83). Groupingofstudents.Peerreviewrequiresstudentstocritiqueeachother's work and is therefore potentially sensitive and threatening. Itis important that students work in a pair or a group where they feel comfortable. They also need to develop trust ineach other. Frequentswitchingofgroups ona randombasismay notbe helpful. Apartfrom pairs, as suggestedbyone of the students, students canworkina small group so that their drafts canbe readbymorethanoneperson. The teacher's role. Itisoftenthecasethatstudentsdo notknow howtobe critical ina constructive manner or how to be concrete and specific in their suggestions. For peer reviews to become fruitful and productive, teachers have an important role to play. They can help by modeling the review process, either with the whole class or with individual students through teacherconferencing.Itwillbeusefulifpeerreviewsaresometimesusedin conjunction with teacher conferencing-not necessarily on the same draft, but perhaps teacher conferencing on a post-peer review draft. This could TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 63 VOL.15,NO.1,WINTER1997 provide students with occasional input from the teacher, informing them aboutdifferentwaystogoaboutreviewingtheirclassmates'drafts. Thestudent'srole. Thewholepurposeofpeerreviewistoenablestudents tobecomemoreawareofthedemandsofwritingandtotakegreaterrespon sibilityfor learning. Itwould beusefulifstudentscould beasked to design theirownreviewsheet,perhapsadifferentoneforadifferentwritingtask.In doing this, they become more aware ofthe criteria required for evaluating writing, especially writing of different kinds. However, this entails more workonthe part ofthe students and has tobe done when the teacher feels that the students are ready to take more responsibility for the peer review process. Making peer review a regular activity and part oflanguage instruction. Peer reviewis a usefulactivity. However,ittends toberegarded asa peripheral languageactivity,doneonceinawhiletofill a gapinthe teachingsyllabus, or serving as a break from the normal routine. In fact, peer review can be usedmorefrequentlyandcanbeincorporatedintotheclassroomasaregular activity-maybewithlesstimespent,butdonemorefrequently.Writingwill thenbecomea moreinterestingandstimulating-andless daunting-expe rienceforstudents. Notes 1IthasbeenpredictedthattheroleofEnglishinHongKongsocietymaychangeafterthechange ofsovereignty(i.e.,after1July1997);however,itisquiteunlikelythatwritinginEnglishwilllose itsimportance,givenHongKong'sstrategicpositionasaninternationalcenter. 2Recently,theEnglishLanguageStudyCentreoftheHongKongPolytechnicUniversity,which offerssupplementaryEnglishforweakerstudents,hasaddedwritingasoneofthefocuses of teaching. Acknowledgments The investigation described in the article was funded by the Departmental Research Grant (EnglishDepartment)oftheHongKongPolytechnicUniversity. The Author Icy Lee was formerly an assistant professor at the English Department of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She is currently teaching ESL writing at Douglas College in British Columbia,Canada.HerresearchinterestsincludeESLreadingandwriting,learnerautonomy, andteacherdevelopment. References Barnes,D.(1976).Fromcommunicationtocurriculum.London:Penguin. Brief,K.(1984).Peertutoringandthe"conversationofmankind."CollegeEnglish,46,635-653. Cazden,C.B.(1988).Classroomdiscourse:Thelanguageofteachingandlearning.Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann. DiPardo,A.,&Freedman,S.W.(1988).Peerresponsegroupsinthewritingclassroom: Theoreticfoundationsandnewdirections.ReviewofEducationalResearch,58(2),119-149. 64 ICYLEE Flower,1.(1979).Writer-basedprose:Acognitivebasisforproblemsinwriting.College English,41(1),19-37. Forman,E.A.,&Cazden,C.B.(1985).ExploringVygotskianperspectivesineducation:The cognitivevalueofpeerinteraction.InJ.V.Wertsch(Ed.),Culture,communicationand cognition:Vygotskianperspectives(pp.332-347).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. Jacobs,G.(1989).Miscorrectioninpeerfeedbackinwritingclass.RELeJournal,20(1),68-76. Luke,K.K.,&Richards,J.(1982).EnglishinHongKong:Functionsandstatus.English Worldwide,3(1),47-64. Mangelsdorf,K.(1992).PeerreviewsintheESLclassroom:Whatdothestudentsthink?ELTJ, 46,274-284. Mendonc;a,C.O.,&Johnson,K.E.(1994).Peerreviewnegotiations:RevisionactivitiesinESL writinginstruction.TESOLQuarterly,28,745-769. Mittan,R.(1989).Thepeerreviewprocess:Harnessingstudents'communicativepower.In D.M.Johnson&D.H.Roen(Eds.),Richnessinwriting:EmpoweringESLstudents(pp. 207-219).NewYork:Longman. Stanley,J.(1992).Coachingstudentwriterstobeeffectivepeerevaluators.JournalofSecond LanguageWriting,1,217-233. Tipper,M.,&Malone,M.(1995).Conflictingdemandsinwritingresponsegroups.TheWriting Instructor,14(2),77-88. Vygotsky,1.5.(1978).Mindinsociety.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Appendix1 PeerReview Sheet (taken from Mendonc;a & Johnson 1994) 1. Beforestartingthepeerreview,explaintoyourpartnerwhatyour paperisabout. 2. Exchangepapers.Spendabout15minutesreadingyourpartner's paper.Whileyouarereading,considerthefollowing: Whatisthemainideaofyourpartner'spaper? Isthereanyideainhisorherpaperthatisnotclear? Whatsuggestionscouldyougivetoyourpartnerinorderto improvehisorherpaper? Table1 TypeandFrequencyofNegotiationsfound inReviewers'Responses Typeofnegotiation FrequencyofOccuffence Number % Requestforexplanation/clarification 16 13 Comprehensioncheck 8 7 Explanationofopinion 14 11 Restatement 9 7 Suggesting 31 25 Evaluating 28 23 Praising 17 14 Total 123 100 TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 65 VOL.15,NO.1,WINTER1997 Table2 TypeandFrequencyofNegotiationsfound inWriters' Responses Typeofnegotiation FrequencyofOccurrence Number % Explanationofunclearpoint/content 39 41 Comprehensioncheck 2 2 Restating/reinterpretingreviewer'sremark 3 3 Eliciting 15 16 Announcingaproblem 7 7 Acceptingreviewer'sremark 17 18 Justifyingthedraft 11 12 Disagreeingwithreviewer'sremark 1 1 Total 95 100 Table3 Typeandfrequencyofrevisions (R/PR) (R/NPR) (NR/PR) 12(60%) 8(40%) 6 RlPR=Revised/Peerreview;RlNPR=Revised/Notinpeerreview;NRIPR=Notrevised/Peerreview. 3. Writedowncommentsorunderlineideasinyourpartner'spaper whichyouhavedifficultyunderstanding. 4. Taketurnstorevieweachother'sdraft. Appendix2A PeerReviewCoding Categories, Definitions,and Examples PeerReviewerResponses Requestforexplanationorclarification Reviewers trytogetfurther explanationofwhatthewriterhassaidorwhat isnotcleartothemintheessays (e.g.,anunknowntermorunclearidea). Example: Whydo youthink"life'sgreatestgriefisfalling inlovewiththesamesex?" What isthemeaningofthisword? Comprehensioncheck Reviewersaskwritersiftheyhaveunderstoodwhathasbeensaid. Example: Idon'tknowthisword.Is it ...? 66 ICYLEE Explanationofopinion Reviewers explain their remark, e.g., why they think a term or idea is not clear and should or should not beused in the essay, orwhy they think the writersshouldfollowtheirsuggestions. Example: ... within the same sentence you try to convey more than one message,also that is whywhenIreadit,sometimesIwillfeel confused... Restatement Reviewersrestatewhathasbeenwrittentoshowunderstanding. Example: You meantheyarelookeddown uponbyotherpeople. Suggesting Reviewerssuggestwaystoimprovetheessays. Example: I think ifyou can write moreabout yourown feelings, then I think it can be more comprehensive. Evaluating Reviewersgivejudgmentsonacertainaspectofthewriting,e.g.,vocabulary. Example: Ithinkyou usequitealotofdifficultwords. To meitisquitedifficult. Praising Reviewerspraiseacertainaspectofthewriting.Thepraisecanbegeneralor specific. Example: In termsofthegrammaranduseofverbs,Ithinkitisgood,excellent. Appendix2B WriterResponses Explanationofunclearpoint/content Writersexplainthesubjectoftheessay. Example: Myfilm reviewis ... Theactorsare...Thestorytoldabout... Comprehensioncheck Writersaskreviewersiftheyhaveunderstoodwhathasbeensaid. Example: Doyou meanthisconnectionis notclear? Restating/interpretingreviewer'sremark Writersrestatewhathasbeensaidtoshowunderstanding. Example: Reviewer:Ithinkyouhavetostateyourinterests. TESLCANADAJOURNAULAREVUETESLDUCANADA 67 VOL.15,NO.1,WINTER1997