Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback

Authors

  • Rachael Ruegg Victoria University of Wellington, P.O Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33157

Keywords:

Peer feedback, Teacher feedback, Learner perceptions, Revision practices

Abstract

A number of studies have used interviews to find out L2 learners’ perceptions of different feedback practices. Usually, learners who have been interviewed have experienced a number of different feedback practices. The purpose of the present study is to investigate learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback after having received feedback from only one source. In this study, learners received either teacher feedback alone or only peer feedback for one year. Twelve students were then interviewed to investigate their revision practices and perceptions of both peer and teacher feedback. The narrative analysis of the interview data showed that participants were very concerned about ‘correcting’ their drafts. Students in both groups had similar levels of comprehension of feedback; however, those in the peer feedback group were more forthcoming about asking their peers when they did not understand. Students in the teacher feedback group felt that they did not have enough time between drafts for the revisions they wanted to make. It was also found that students in the peer feedback group seemed to benefit more from reading their peers’ writing than from receiving peer feedback.

Author Biography

Rachael Ruegg, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

Dr. Rachael Ruegg is a lecturer in the school of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She has previously taught writing at universities in Japan for nine years. Her research interests mainly involve the teaching and assessment of writing and she has published a number of academic articles in this area.

References

Allaei, S. & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28.

Carson, J. & Nelson, G. (1994). Writing groups: Cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17-30.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various different kinds of feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 267-296.

Chaudron, C. (1984). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on revision. RELC Journal, 15, 1-14.

Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In: Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.) Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Cohen, A. & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (155-177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Conrad, S. & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Text, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-179

Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193-204.

Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.

Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C. & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language writing, 6(2), 155-182.

Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.

Gonzalez, E. (2010). Impact of teacher/student conferencing and teacher written feedback on EFL revision. MEXTESOL Journal, 34(1), 59-71.

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276.

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 141-163.

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308.

Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.

Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001) Sugaring the Pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 185-212.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Knoblauch, C. & Brannon, L. (1984). Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing. Upper Montclair: Boynton Cook.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.

Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. The CATESOL Journal 3, 5-19.

Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. In: Belcher, D. & Liu, J. (Eds.) Michigan Series on Teaching Multicultural Writers.

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(1), 30-43.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL classroom: What do students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-283.

Mendonca, C. & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL Writing Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-768.

Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer-review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 15, 118-141.

Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In Johnson, D. & Roen, D. (Eds.). Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp 207-219). New York: Longman.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Nelson, G. & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141.

Semke, H. (1982). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17(3), 195-202.

Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’. ELT Journal, 52(1), 19-26.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction. Language Learning 46:2, 327-369.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction of learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 255-272.

Tsui, A. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

Yang, M., Badger, R. & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.

Zacharias, N. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38-52.

Published

2017-11-17

How to Cite

Ruegg, R. (2017). Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing and Pedagogy, 9(2), 275-300. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33157

Issue

Section

Research Matters