does peer feedback affect l2 writers' l2 learning, composition...

English Teaching, Vol. 68, No. 3, Autumn 2013

Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Learning, Composition Skills, Metacognitive ~owledge,

and L2 Writing Anxiety?

Jaeho Choi

(Sangmyung University)

Choi, Jaeho. (2013). Does peer feedback affect L2 writers' L2 learning,

composition skills, metacognitive knowledge, and L2 writing an찌ety? English

Teaching, 68(3), 187-213.

This study examined the effects of peer feedback combined with teacher feedback on

L2 writing. From a review of related studies, several factors were selected as

predictors of L2 writing proficiency: L2 knowledge and composition skills, L2

writing anxiety, and metacognitive knowledge on L2 writing. Participants were 75

college students, who were randomly assigned to the experimental or the control

group. Both groups received teacher feedback, while the experimental group

performed peer feedback activities, and the control group did self-reflective revision

in addition. Data were collected from teacher and peer feedback, timed writing, an L2

writing anxiety survey, and evaluation of a sample essay. A statistical analysis

revealed differences between teacher and peer feedback. Peer feedback combined

with teacher feedback appeared to be beneficial for increasing L2 knowledge and

lowering L2 writing anxiety. In the regression 뻐alysis, writing 없1Xiety predicted the

level of L2 knowledge and composition skills. Based on the findings, implications for

L2 writing class and suggestions for future studies are presented.

Key words: peer feedback, ESL/EFL writing, L2 writing anxiety, corrective feedback

1. INTRODUCTION

187

η1e growing needs for English writing due to expanding global communication in

English have led to 뻐 increase in research and practice in English writing as a second

language (L2). In the early stage of L2 writing studies, most of the theoretical basis and

methods were borrowed from composition studies of English as a first language (LI)

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-20 J 2S I ASA8024261 ).

Book Centre교보문고 KYOBO

188 Jaeho Choi

(P이io, 2012). It was not until the late 1960s that L2 writing began to be considered a

separate study topic apart from LI English composition studies. Since then, there has been

steep increase of research on L2 writing (Matsuda, 2003).

Unlike L 1 English writing research, which mostly concerns composition, L2 writing is a

more complex discipline involving composition as well as L2 language learning. Matsuda

( 1998) provides in-depth discussion of the interdisciplinary aspects of L2 writing, defining

L2 writing as the intersection between Teaching English as Second Language (TESL) and

composition studies. In the TESL context, writing instruction and practices aim to enhance

L2 language knowledge and skills, while in the other context, students learn how to write.

Consequently, L2 writing is affected by various L2 learning and composition factors, such

as LI writing proficiency, L2 lexical knowledge, L2 gr없nmar knowledge, metacognitive

knowledge, and affective factors (Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, & Gelderen, 2009).

However, due to the relatively short history of research and the complex nature of L2

writing, the processes of L2 writing, learning mechanisms, and relevant factors have not

been fully explored (P이io, 2012).

In addition to the theoretical approach to understanding L2 writing, there have been

attempts to improve L2 writing insπuction. For instance, in L2 writing classes, written

feedback is most commonly adopted as interactive instruction. Although written feedback

can be given by a teacher, peers, or a computer, teacher corrective feedback is mostly

practiced and favored by teachers and students (Ferris, 2006). In spite of the popul없따 of

teacher corrective f농edback, there have been continuing debates on the effectiveness of

teacher corrective feedback, since Truscott ( 1996) asserted that the corrective feedback is

useless and even harmful. However, initial research focusing on the effects of corrective

feedback has expanded on the various factors and conditions offeedback (Ferris, 2006).

Peer feedback is an alternative feedback, which is also widely practiced 피 L2 wri따ig

classrooms. Research on peer feedback has proved the benefits of peer feedback on

students' academic performance (Fuchs, Fuchs, & B따ish, 2000) and socio-affective

competence (Beirne-Smith, 1991; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Wager, 1991) in various subject areas

of education. There have been studies on numerous aspects of peer f농edback, such as types

of peer feedback (Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena, & Struyven, 2이0), the number of

reviewers (Cho, Schunn, & Wilson, 2006), peer feedback σaining (Berg, 1999; M띠, 2006),

modal때 of feedback (Jones, Garralda, Li, & Lock, 2006), and giving and receiving

feedback (Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 201 O; Lundsσom & Baker, 2009). However, few studies

have examined peer feedback in L2 writing settings; thus, further studies are needed for a

richer and deep understanding of peer feedback in L2 writing.

Although there have been various and extensive attempts to ascertain the nature of L2

writing and find effective instructional approaches, including written feedback, m버1er

studies need to rigorously examine various factors influencing L2 writing. For example,


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Leaming, Composition Skills, … 189

the current analysis of L2 writing achievement does not provide a clear distinction between

L2 language learning and acquisition of composition skills. In addition, studies on L2

learners' skills and knowledge have examined cognitive, metacognitive, and affective

aspects, respectively, but lacking a comprehensive approach. Research on feedback also

needs to encourage examination feedback performance in real classroom settings.

Laboratory experiments of simple comparisons between teacher feedback group and peer

feedback group do not reflect the actual situations of L2 writing classes, where teacher and

peer feedback are usually employed for writing practice in a complementary m없mer.

Drawing on findings and limitations of L2 writing studies, this study examines the effects

of peer feedback combined with teacher feedback, and explores the integrated impacts of

cognitive, metacognitive, and affective factors in both realms of L2 learning and

composition.

2. 니TERA TURE REVIEW

2.1 . Interdisciplinary Nature of L2 Writing and Influencing Factors

Although 빼y studies on L2 writing largely relied on LI 뼈ting theories and practices,

with the increase of second language users, L2 writing research has begun to develop

unique models for L2 writing (Polio, 2012). Matsuda (1998) intends to define the field of

L2 writing, especially ESL, in relation to adjacent disciplines: Teaching English as a

Second Language (TESL) and composition studies. He criticizes ‘'the division of labor

model,” in which ESL writing is a P따t of TESL separated from composition, and S맹gests

“센ie intersection model,” where ESL writing simultaneously represents the intersection of

the ESL 뻐d composition fields. Due to the cross-disciplinary nature of L2 writing, writing

has a twofold role with students and teachers: write-to-learn and learn-to-write (Manch6n,

2009, 2011). In the learn-to-write perspective, composition skills are the learning goals of

writing instruction. On the other hand, the write-to-learn perspective focuses on L2

language learning through writing practic℃s. Therefore, the factors affecting L2 writing

encompass relevant elements for L2 language learning and acquisition of composition

skills.

The factors known to be influential to L2 writing are related with one of three aspects of

L2 writing: cognitive, metacognitive, and affective. Research on L2 writing processes has

attempted to explain L2 writing processes by considering those factors. For instance, in

seeking to understand the process of L2 writing, the Dutch NELSON pr이ect provides a

model of L2 writing process. In reporting the results of the pr이ect, Schoonen 빼 뼈S

colleagues (2009) propose that L2 writing is a complex process involving a number of


190 Jaeho Choi

cognitive factors, such as linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive

knowledge. The linguistic knowledge includes gramm없, vocabulary, and o며1ographic

knowledge. Metacognitve knowledge refers to knowledge about text characteristics and

sσategies for reading and writing. The speed of processing concerns lexical retrieval and

sentence building. The study proposes that metacoginitive knowledge, L2 language

knowledge, and the speed could “explain” 80% of the variance in L2 writing proficiency

(Schoonen et al., 2009, p. 95). In addition to the cognitive and metacognitive factors,

affective aspects have been examined on the effects on writing performance. For instance,

anxiety has been known to negatively influence language performance in general (Horwitz,

2001; Horwitz, Hon씨tz, & Cope, 1986; Macintyre, 1999; Young, 1986). However, few

studies have examined the relationship between anxiety and L2 writing peκormance or

quality. Tsui (1996) asseπs that L2 learners experience intensive writing 없ixiety due to the

nature of L2 writing, which is a product-oriented individual task often lacking help,

support or encouragement. More recent studies of Tsai and Cheng (2009) and Woodrow

(2011) confirm that 없ixiety negatively affects L2 writing performance directly and

indirectly. To measure the 없ixiety of second language writing, Cheng (2004) developed

the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SL W Al), which has good reliability and

adequate validity.

Research findings suggest that L2 writing involves cognitive, metacognitive, and

affective processes in language learning and composition. However, in L2 writing research,

a clear distinction between L2 learning and acquisition of composition skills has been

lacking in analyses of the process and achievement of L2 writing. In addition, the absence

of an integrated approach to cognitive, metacognitive, and affective factors makes it

difficult to understand multi-dimensional processes of L2 writing. Thus, research on the

nature and affecting factors of L2 requires comprehensive studies, which examine the

combined effects of factors in three aspects both in language learning and composition.

2.2. Teacher Corrective Feedback

In L2 writing classes, teacher corrective feedback (CF) is the most common instructional

practice. However, in spite of theoretical support from second language acquisition (SLA)

research and empirical evidence for corrective feedback, the debate on the effect of CF has

continued since Truscott’ controversy in 1996 (see Bitchener, 2008; 2009; Ferris, 1999;

2004; Fe띠s, Liu, S띠ha, & Senna, 2012; Truscott, 1996; 1999; 2007; Truscott & Hsu,

2008; Xu, 2009). While early research on CF examined simply the effects of CF on writing

quality or proficiency, recent studies have focused on different forms of, such as whether

CF focuses on specific linguistic features, whether it corrects eπors directly or indirectly,

or what kinds of errors are appropriate for CF. For instance, focused CF on a specific type


Does Peer Feedback A많ct L2 Writers' L2 Leaming, Composition Skills, … 191

of error was reported to be effective for accuracy (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener &

Knoch, 2009; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007). Although the unfocused CF has undergone

little res댔ch, some studies report positive effects of unfocused CF. Van Beuningen 뻐d

his colleagues (2008) found effects of unfocused CF in improving acc따acy not only in the

revised draft but also in new writing. The explicitness of feedback is a common criterion to

distinguish direct and indirect feedback. However, studies on the differing effectiveness of

direct and indirect CF su잃est conflicting conclusions. The inconsistency of results could

be caused by problematic research design and analysis as well as the type of error that is

targeted (Van Beuningen, 2010). Studies that evaluate the effects of CF have found that CF

contributes diff농rently to the improvement of linguistic knowledge depending on the types

of linguistic errors. For example, Ferris (2006) categorized errors into five m헤or groups:

verb errors, noun errors, article errors, lexical errors, and sentence eπors. She found that

students receiving CF reduced only verb errors. Other studies with diff농rent error

categories also found differing CF effects depending on the type of eπors (e.g., Bitchener,

Young, & Cameron, 2005; Lalande, 1982). πie various, and sometimes contradictory

results and the lack of consensus on the effects of CF could be attributed to the research

design, methodology, and external, confounding variables, such as class activities and

grading (Guenette, 2007). For instance, measuring CF effects by comp때son between the

first and the revised drafts does not exactly indicate improvement of L2 writing proficiency,

because revision is not necessarily evidence of achieving L2 knowledge (Xu, 2009). πlUS,

Truscott and Hsu (2008) su잃.est comparing two independently written works. In addition,

the effects of teacher feedback need to be measured, considering how much students

respond to the &잉back. Many studies did not include response rates in analyses of teacher

feedback, which made it unclear whether the results were caused by the qual때 of teacher

feedback, students’ attitudes, or their ability to respond. Learner’s attention to the feedback

is essential for the feedback to contribute to learning (Ellis, 2005; Polio, 2012), and

response to feedback is an index of leaner’s attention. Therefore, the effects of feedback

need to be reported with attention indices. Additionally, when the research adopts focused

feedback, the improved performance of the specific focused features could be the results of

learners' conscious monitoring of the target feature when performing the post-test, which

does not indicate acquisition of language knowledge (Xu, 2009). These limitations of the

existing studies indicate a need for rigorous research design in future studies.

2.3. Peer Feedback

While peer feedback in L2 writing has not been explored so much, feedback research

has proved the positive effects of feedback on learning in various educational settings. In

general, as an alternative instructional approach, peer feedback is widely practiced in


192 Jaeho Choi

classrooms and has been researched extensively in various subject areas of education.

Studies reveal that peer feedback activity encourages interactions in class and improves

memory and academic achievement (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1989; Fuchs,

Fuchs, & Burish, 2000). Beirne-Smith (1991) found that peer activities help students

develop their identities and improve learning. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Simmons ( 1997)

showed the positive effects of peer feedback for fluency, accuracy, and literacy in 40

reading classes between the second and sixth grades.

While research on peer evaluation has focused on the effects of feedback given by peers,

recent research has reported positive correlations between a feedback provider’s feedback

and the qual띠 of their writing (Althauser & D없nail, 2001; Cho & Cho, 2011; Li, Liu, &

Steckelberg, 201 이. Cho 뻐d Cho (2011) analyzed the relations between reviewers' writing

quality and their feedback to peers with 87 college students, and they found that the

reviewer’s peer feedback activities improved their own writing. Lundstrom 뻐d Baker

(2009) imposed a rigid experimental design to compare the behaviors of receiving and

giving feedback with 91 English language learners. One group of students practiced solely

reviewing peers’ writing as p없t of their writing instruction, and the other group focused

only on receiving feedback and using it for revising their own writing. At the end of the

semester, the reviewing group made more significant gains in their own writing than did

the receivers. The results were confirmed by another study by Cho 때d Mac A빼ur (2011),

who compared the effects of pre-writing activities on the quality of writing between three

groups: reviewing, reading, and no-activity. The reviewing group gave peer feedback after

reading peers’ papers, the reading group read peers’ papers without giving feedback, and

the no-activity group did not have any pre-writing activity. After the pre-writing activities,

students who reviewed and rated papers outperformed those who only read papers or did

not do a pre-writing activity when writing a paper. The results confirmed the added value

of giving feedback.

However, in spite of the benefits of peer feedback, there have been several challenges to

the practice of peer evaluation in classrooms. First, its reliability and validity have been a

major concern of educators and researchers. Several studies indicated students’ preference

for teacher feedback to peer feedback (Rushton, Ramsey, & Rada, 1993; Topping, Smith,

Swanson, & Elliot, 2000), a tendency to give moderate feedback and avoid confrontational

types (Catterall, 1995; Taylor, 1995), and a lack of comprehensive feedback (Caulk, 1994;

Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006). In addition, it is challenging and time-consuming for

teachers to manage multiple instances of peer feedback among students. To address the

challenges, researchers suggested σaining for evaluation (Berg, 1999; Min, 2006), a web

based peer review system (Cho & Schunn, 2007), and m비tiple blind peer reviews (Cho,

Schunn, & Wilson, 2006). Berg’s ( 1999) study with 46 ESL students reported that the peer

feedback σai띠ng positively affected students’ revision types and the quality of writing. In



addition, Cho, Schunn, and Wilson (2006) suggested at least four blind peer reviewers per

task for peer feedback to be as reliable and valid as expert feedback.

Although peer feedback research has examined the effects of peer feedback by

considering various facets of feedback performance, most were conducted in educational

contexts or settings other than L2 writing. Due to the relatively short history of L2 writing

research, peer feedback has not received much attention, and even in the studies on peer

feedback 띠 L2 writing, peer feedback was examined in its holistic effects on L2 writing

performance, but lacking de떼led analysis of specific features of feedback. For instance,

Tsui and Ng (2000) examined the effects of peer feedback in EFL writing settings.

Al thou맹 the study reports the positive effects of peer feedback to e띠iance a sense of

audience, self-monitoring skills, collaborative learning, and ownership of text, it does not

provide detailed descriptions of the feedback. Thus, unlike the research on teacher

corrective feedback, peer feedback research lacks focus on specific features ofL2 language

and composition. Therefore, the findings of peer feedback research in other educational

contexts need to be examined in regard to L2 writing conditions.

2.4. Research Questions

Drawing on the review of research, this study intends to address several issues in design.

First, this study breaks down L2 writing proficiency into L2 knowledge and composition

skills. The division enables a detailed understanding of feedback effects. Second, instead of

simple comparison between the teacher feedback group and the peer feedback group, the

study measures the added values of peer feedback when peer feedback is combined with

teacher feedback. The design is intended to reflect real writing education settings, where

teacher and peer feedback are presented simultaneously or one after the other, based on 뻐

assumption that teacher and peer feedback are complement없y. In addition, unfocused

feedback methods, commenting on every aspect of writing, is adopted to observe students'

overall improvement in writing. Last, to ascertain L2 writing proficiency, the study

examines cognitive, metaco!암iitive, and affective factors comprehensively.

This study examines the differences between teacher and peer feedback, the added value

of peer feedback on L2 knowledge and composition skills, and the relationship between

cognitive, metacognitive, and affective factors in L2 writing with the following research

questions:

1. What diff농rences exist between teacher feedback and peer feedback in terms of the

frequency, response rate, and the types offeedback?

2. Does teacher-peer-combined feedback activity have an impact on improving L2 learning

and/or composition skills?


194 JaehoChoi

3. Does teacher-peer-combined feedback activity influence metacognitive knowledge and

anxiety?

4. Do anxiety and metacognitve knowledge influence the quality ofL2 writing?

3. RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Participants and Setting

P없ticipants consisted of75 students (34 females and 41 males) at a Korean c이lege, who

enrolled 띠 a required English course. In total, there were 39 sophomores and 36 juniors.

Most of them had no previous experience in writing an essay in English. The course was

for the intermediate level and designed to teach basic academic reading and writing skills.

Participants were recruit뼈 from four classes of the same course tau맹t by the researcher as

a single instructor. Essay writing activity has been embedded in the middle of the course

for four weeks, which was comprised of lectures and writing practices. The writing

instruction 때d practices followed a process approach, the process of writing, in which

writing is a recursive process of planning, drafting, receiving feedback, and revising

(Raimes, 1985).

Four classes were randomly assigned to either the teacher-only feedback or teacher

peer-combined feedback conditions. The teacher-only group was a control group with

traditional teacher feedback, while the combined group was an experimental group that

practiced interactive and cooperative peer feedback in addition to teacher feedback. Except

for the feedback activities, all p따ticipants had the same insσuctor and equivalent writing

lessons and practices. The writing lessons covered how to develop and organize an idea,

how to write grarnrnatically correct sentences, and how to write natural and fluent

sentences with precise words and appropriate transitions.

3.2. Procedure

In the beginning of the research intervention, the teacher inπoduced writing processes

planning, drafting, reviewing, and revising-and writing rubrics of six traits: ideas,

organization, voice, word choice, fluency, and conventions (see Table 1 ). Students had a

chance to evaluate a piece of sample writing using the writing rubric. In the following class,

the experimental group received training on how to do a feedback activity through an

online writing assistant tool, SWoRD (Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline).

On the other hand, the control group practiced how to revise writing by referring to given

feedback. Then the instructor gave an essay writing assignment to a” students: writing


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Learning, Composition Skills, .. 195

about events or persons that are important to them. Students went through four stages of

the process of writing: planning, drafting, reviewing, and revising.

Both groups wrote an essay and received feedback twice for their first drafts and revised

ones before submitting the final drafts. The teacher-only group received feedback from the

teacher, and each student of the teacher-peer-combined group received feedback from both

the teacher and peers. The teacher gave feedback using the track-change function of a word

processer pro망am, which makes corrections or comments noticeable for easy and prompt

revision. The peer feedback activ띠 was conducted through SWoRD. Students logged on

the SWoRD website to submit their drafts, downloaded peer’s papers in PDF format, read

peers’ papers and gave feedback, and reviewed peers’ feedback on their drafts. While the

teacher-only group only received the teacher feedback, the teacher-peer-combined group

not only received the teacher feedback, but also received and gave peer feedback. For

reviews of drafts, the expe디mental group downloaded randomly assigned peers’ drafts and

rated the quality of writing from 1 (very poor) to 7 (excellent) in six πaits of writing (see

Table 1 ). Student reviewers also added comments for each writing trait. Thus, each student

in the experimental group reviewed four p않r writing drafts and received feedback from

four students. All drafting, feedback, and revision activities were done after class in both

groups. 까ie final writing was submitted to the instructor via e-mail.

Trait

Ideas

Organization

Voice

Word Choice

Sentence

TABLE 1

Six Traits of Writing Rubric

Definition Domain

Main message, the content of the piece, the main theme, together Composition

with all the supporting details that enrich and develop that theme

Internal structure of a piece of writing, the thread of central Composition

meaning, the pattern and sequence, so long as it fits the central idea

The writer coming through the words, the sense that a real person is Composition

speaking to us and cares about the message

Use of rich, colorful, precise language that communicates not just in

a functional way, but in a way that moves and enlightens the reader

Rhythm and flow of the language, the sound of word patterns, the

L2

L2 Fluency way in which the writing 미ays to the ear, not just to the eye

Mechanical correctness of the piece and includes five elements:

Conventions spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar/usagζ and L2

paragraphing


196 JaehoChoi

Before and after the writing task, three measurements were administered to find

differences between the two groups: timed writing, the Second Language Writing Anxiety

survey, and an evaluation skill test.

3.3. SWoRD (Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline)

A web-based writing assistant tool, SWoRD, was adopted for peer feedback activities in

the experimental group, the teacher-peer-combined group. The online progr없n was

developed by Cho 뻐d Schunn (2007) to assist and encourage peer tutoring. The online

service features task adminisσation, reviewer assignment, evaluation of peer writ피g,

review of feedback, evaluation of feedback quality, and statistical a에ustment of scores by

considering the reviewer’s grading tendencies. In this study, as shown in Figure l, the

teacher opened a course, registered students, and created writing tasks.

Writing assignments were presented with the description of a task, criteria for feedback

and evaluation, and due dates for each activ벼, such as drafting, reviewing, and revising.

On a given topic, students wrote and submitted drafts to SWoRD. Then the program

automatically assigned four drafts to each reviewer. Writers and reviewers were double

blind to each other. Students gave comments and rated fo따 peers’ drafts and received

feedback from four reviewers. With the given feedback, students revised their drafts.

FIGURE 1

SWoRD Assignment List Page

I뼈삐.빼-"'"밍nment t.m

찌 -빼

-뺑 뽕

•

.“·”‘”-·- ‘'"°'’‘

·-------.,,_~

.‘'"I>'!.*"'*‘ ------ - ------...... °"" .. ~ ------*· ''------.“ .. ~.걷·=-- ----------。•• ..... _‘

“‘--””·””

°""""'‘ ”---‘ 잉쩨~ ‘$r.W ~ι. ’ ----z ---…-la! I -•l.l!ll - -π•"-•l.l!ll I --••'"'-ta!! • ω.어*” ll!!I ·-

-뼈-를------* -----------”·*‘ .’‘-----&----‘” ’ ..... ~ -”‘ ........ “” .......... _ z -----”""!di!!

11\0tti‘!‘’--------‘·”” 3 -·tw ......... -..,.‘”“·~ ‘---“ ’ ... 0-•ll!t! ·‘ ... ~ ...... 딩*·”·-“” - -’‘ ..... , ...... 1'1!1 ... ._ .. ” "" l • """"이.” “· ~ !tl:!!bl

l “----”‘-- I

---*· 0.at‘i ,,。, IS .‘’ll/1012” ‘-•.. ,,.l li> ll" --”-.... ,。‘,,0 11)

~" ‘.'(lt>OCt

·‘Ol lS 06f 04/20‘----”‘- --‘,.,, •• ‘,., ·*·‘ IOlifl Ot l。,.

-요!Ml‘n •l'.!ft!t‘



3.4. Measures

To ex없nine the effects of cooperative peer evaluation, fo따 types of comp따ison data

were collected: teacher and peer feedback, pre- and post-timed writing, pre-and post

anxiety survey, and pre- and post-test for evaluating an essay. These data were used as

indices of differences between teacher-only and teacher-peer-combined feedback:

improved L2 knowledge and composition skills, reduced English writing anxiety, and

increased metacognitive knowledge on L2 and composition.

3.4.1. Teacher and peer feedback performance

The feedback and response rates 、¥ere measured by the types of feedback. Feedback

type was categorized according to three C디teria: negative or positive, L2 or composition,

and direct or indirect (see Table 2). Negative feedback indicates notification of erroneous

or inappropriate components, while positive feedback consists of appreciation of good

performance. The distinction between L2 and composition refers to whether the feedback

relates to L2 issues or composition matters. Direct feedback points to where the error

occurs with a suggestion for how to revise it. However, indirect feedback simply indicates

what type of error is presented without any suggestions. According to these criteria, the

number of each type of feedback on each student’s first and second drafts was counted, and

each instance of feedback was tracked to determine whether it was revised or ignored for

calculating the response rate.

Negative

L2 Direct

L2 Indirect

Composition

Positive

L2

Composition

Type

TABLE2

Types of Feedback

Example

She walk down the sσ·eet. (walk-> walks, 3며 singular present s )

It was hard 엎쁘 money.

The topic sentence is unclear. Please revise it with acl않r topic and a controlling idea.

Direction

Provide feedback on L2 errors with a correct form.

Indicate L2 error(s) without correct form Suggest how to improve organization, develop ideas, and pr'[ >duce proper voice.

Well written sent태ices with correct grammar! Appreciate correct L2 usage. You have a clear topic sentence and supporting Appreciate good composition details. Good Job! work.


198 Jaeho Choi

3.4.2. Improvement ofL2 knowledge and composition skills

Timed writing was conducted before and after the research intervention. Students were

asked to write an essay on a given topic for 40 minutes. Each writing draft was assessed

using the six traits of the writing rubric. Students' essays were graded by two native

English insσuctors who have been teaching English for more than six years at post

secondary level in Korea. Each essay was graded on a 5-point scale from I (not yet) to 5

(very sσong) for each of the six traits. For interrater reliability, two raters graded 20 essays

individually first and then discussed their grading scores with each other. Then both raters

graded all pre-and post-timed writing separately. The internal reliability measured by

Cronbach’s alphas between the two raters was .88 for pre-writing and .90 for post-writing.

The scores of the two raters were summed to indicate the score for each trait. Then scores

of the first three σaits-ideas, organi갱tion, and voice-were summed for the composition

skill score. The sum of the last three scores was indexed for L2 knowledge: word choice,

sentence fluency, and conventions. Finally, each paper was graded to indicate L2

knowledge and composition skills. The improvement of L2 knowledge and composition

skills were measured by the increased scores between pre- and post-timed writing.

3.4.3. Reduction of English writing 없lXiety

The Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SL WAI) was adopted to meas따e a

student’s 없lXiety level in English writing. To assess anxiety in second language writing,

Cheng (2004) developed the SL W Al, which consists of 22 questions regarding somatic

anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and avoidance behavior on Likert scales from 1 (sσongly

disagree) to 5 (sσongly agree). Seven items were negatively worded and required reverse

scoring for summing up to yield the SL WAI total scores. A higher score thus indicated a

higher level of English writing 없lXiety . 돼e SL WAI was administered before and after the

intervention to find an increase or decrease of anxiety and diff농rences between the groups

depending on feedback activities. In Cheung’s (2004) developmental research, the original

internal consistency of a Cronbach’s a was .91. In this study, the internal reliability of

SL WAI surveys was proven reliable with a Cronbach’s a of .92 both in the pre- and post

tests. To measure reduction of anxiety level, the post-test score was subtracted from the

pre-test score, so that the value indicated how much students lowered their anxiety levels

through the intervention.

3.4.4. Increase ofmetacognitive knowledge ofL2 and composition

Metacognitive knowledge of the L2 and composition was measured by how accurately a



student evaluated the level of L2 knowledge and composition skills of a piece of sample

writing. Students graded the S없ne essay before and after research intervention using the six

traits of the writing rubric (see Table l ). π1ey evaluated it on a five-point scale from l (not

yet) to 5 (strong) for each πait, and their scores were compared with the scores from the

experts, nνo native English instructors. The proximity of graded scores between a student

and the experts was defined as the level of metaco!감1itive knowledge. 까1e first three

scores-ide잃, organization, and voice-indicate the composition skill score, and the last

thre응-word choices, sentence fluency, and conventions-were for L2 knowledge. The

differences between student and expert scores 띠 each category of composition 뻐d L2

knowledge were summed up to negatively indicate the student’s level , of metacognitive

knowledge on L2 and composition. Because the scores indicate a student’s score difference

from 뻐 expert score, the higher the score, the lower the metacognitive knowledge. π1e

difference between the pre- and the post-test indicated an increase of metacognitive

knowledge.

4.RESULTS

4.1. Q1: Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback

Before comp앙ing teacher feedback and peer feedback, independent-samples t-tests were

conducted to find whether the teacher feedback performance differed between the

experimental and control groups. The descriptive statistics for teacher feedback are shown

in Table 3, and the t-test results indicate that teacher feedback perform뻐ce did not differ

between the two groups (all p ’s > .05, see Table 3).

TABLE3

Teacher Feedback Performance

Feedback Type Control Experimental

c” (n = 41) (n = 34) p

No. 10.61(5.73) 11.20(5.73) -.44 73 .66 Negative L2 direct

Rate .88(.22) .84(.23) .76 73 .45

No. 9.14(3.52) 9.56(3.95) -.49 73 .63 Negative L2 indirect

Rate .68(.24) .75(.20) -1.37 73 .18

Negative composition No. 2.41(.98) 2.12(.88) 1.35 73 .18 Rate .49(.29) .55(.31) -.82 73 .41

Positive L2 No. .05(.31) .18(.46) -1.43 73 .16 Positive composition No. .20(.40) .27(.57) -.62 73 .54

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses next to means.


200 Jaeho Choi

In general, teacher feedback was disproportionately more for negative L2 (M = 20.21 ,

SD= 6.75) than for negative composition (M= 2.27, SD= .94), but was balanced between

direct (M= 10.88, SD = 5.70) and indirect (M= 9.33, SD= 3.70) in negative L2 feedback.

The inclination toward L2 in teacher feedback seems to be caused by the scope of the L2

and composition feedback. L2 feedback usually dealt with specific words, phrases, and

sentences, while composition comments concerned the overall structure of writing at the

paragraph or essay level. In addition, most teacher feedback was negative feedback (M =

22.48, SD = 5.70) rather than positive (M = .34, SD = .39). Student responses to negative

teacher feedback were quite different between L2 (M = .81, SD = .12) and composition (M

= .54, SD = .37). That is, students responded to almost 80% of teacher feedback for L2, but

only 54% offeedback for composition.

The peer feedback was evenly distributed between positive (M = 4.17, SD = 5.40) and

negative (M= 3.38, SD = 3.73) feedback, and between negative L2 (M= 1.47, SD= 2.23)

and composition (M= 1.91 , SD = 2.08). π1e tendency of response rates favoring L2 was

also observed in the peer feedback (L2 rate: M = .41 , SD = .14; composition rate: M = .25,

SD = .42).

In comp앙ing teacher and peer feedback in the experimental group, teacher feedback

was significantly more in the number of instances of feedback and higher in response rates

than for peer feedback in negative feedback (all p 's < .05), except in the instances of

composition feedback (see Table 4). However, for positive feedback, students received

more L2 and composition feedback from their peers than from the teacher (L2: p < .01,

composition: p < .0 I). In conclusion, the teacher provided more negative and L2 feedback

than the student reviewers, and students were more likely to respond to teacher feedback.

TABLE4

Comparison between Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback

Teacher Feedback Type Peer Feedback df p

Feedback

No. 20.21(6.75) 1.47(2.23) 15.85 33 .000 Negative L2

Rate .81(0.12) .41(0.14) 2.88 33 .007

No. 2.27(0.94) 1.91(2.08) .58 33 .570 Negative composition

Rate .54(0.37) .25(0.42) 3.08 19 .006

Positive L2 No. .11(0.44) 1.55(2.40) -3.42 32 .002

Positive composition No. .23(0.57) 2.62(3.30) -4.54 33 .000

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses next to means.


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Leaming, Composition Skills,... 201

4.2. 02: Effects on L2 Learning and Composition Skills

A nνo factor fixed-effect split-plot design, or mixed design, was employed to find

whether the teacher-peer-combined feedback group was effective in increasing L2

knowledge and composition skills over the intervention period.

In measures of L2 knowledge, the analysis results (see Tables 5 and 6) revealed a

significant main effect between groups, F(l,73) = 5.97, p = .02, a/= 0.05, and between

weeks, F(l,73) = 6.90, p = .이 , o/ = O.oI. The experimental group (M = 6.04, SE= .41)

showed higher L2 proficiency than the control group (M = 4.69, SE = .37); and post

writing (M = 5.05, SE = .30) was better than pre-writing (M = 5.68, SE = .30) in L2

proficiency. In addition, there was a significant interaction between groups and the weeks,

F(l,73) = 7.98, p = .01, al= O.oI. As shown in the interaction graph (Figure 2), the result

suggests that the experimental group significantly improved L2 knowledge more than the

control group over the four weeks.

TABLES

Descriptive Statistics for L2 Knowledge and Composition Skills Scores

Estimated 95%Cl Measure Group Week Std. Error

Mean Lower Upper

Pre 4.72 .41 3.91 5.53 Control

Post 4.67 .40 3.87 5.47 L2

Pre 5.38 .45 4.50 6.27 Experiment

Post 6.69 .44 5.81 7.58

Pre 5.33 .26 4.82 5.84 Control

Post 5.21 .25 4.72 5.71 Composition

Pre 5.35 .28 4.79 5.91 Experiment

Post 5.59 .27 5.04 6.13


202 Jaeho Choi

TABLE6

Mixed Model ANOV A Summary (L2 Knowledge and Composition Skills)

Measure Source SS df MS F p ES (o/)

Between

Group 67.15 I 67.15 5.97 .02 0.05

Error 820.85 73 11.24

Within L2

Week 14.84 14.84 6.90 .이 O.QJ

Week*Group 17.14 17.14 7.98 .01 0.01

Error(week) 156.91 73 2.15

Total 1076.89

Between

Group 1.45 1.45 0.33 .57 -0.01

Error 321 .33 73 4.40

Compo- Within

sition Week 0.14 0.14 0.17 .68 0.00

Week*Group 1.16 1.16 1.47 .23 0.00

Error (week) 57.82 73 0.79

Total 381.89

FIGURE2

L2 Knowledge Score

___. 6 *ι ￥ 씨 ; __... • "· 1 1 •- c。ntr。|4 t I 노~rimental 2

0 Pre Post

However, there were no significant main effects of groups and weeks, or interaction

between two main factors in composition skills (see Table 6). 깨띠, the results indicated

that composition skills did not differ across time or groups.

4.3. Q3: Effects on Anxiety and Metacognitive Knowledge

To examine whether the teacher-peer-combined feedback group was effective for

reducing the level of writing anxiety and increasing metacognitive knowledge for L2 and


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Learning, Composition Skills, … 203

composition over the four weeks, a mixed design ANOV A was employed to measure the

difference between the experimental group and the control group. Because metacognitive

knowledge was measured by the differences between student and expert grading, the

higher scores indicated lower level of metaCO!잊iitive knowledge.

The analysis of writing anxiety revealed that there was no significant main effect

between groups, nor between weeks (see Tables 7 and 8). However, there was a significant

interaction between groups and the weeks, F(l,73) = 4.02, p = .05, o/ = 0.이 . As shown in

Figure 3, the experimental group reduced their anxiety level significantly more than the

control group throughout the course of the experiment.

The mixed ANOV A analysis indicated that there was not a significant effect of group or

week on the level of L2 metacognitive knowledge. However, there was a significant

interaction between group and weeks F(l,73) = 8.75, p < .01, o/ = 0.02. ηie significant

effect of interaction indicated that the experimental group more significantly improved L2

metaco!잊iitive knowledge by reducing differences with expert sco띠ig, as shown in Figure

4.

TABLE7

Descriptive Statistics ofL2 Writing An상ety and Metacognitive Knowledge Scores

Estimated 95%CI Meas따e Group Week Std. Error

Mean Lower Upper

Pre 91.11 3.05 85.03 97.19 Control

Post 91.99 2.85 86.31 97.67 Anxiety

Pre 96.63 3.35 89.96 103.31 Experimental

Post 88.63 3.13 82.39 94.86

Pre 3.54 0.27 3.01 4.07 Meta- Control

Post 3.77 0.29 3.20 4.35 knowledge

Pre 4.11 0.29 3.53 4.69 L2 Experimental

Post 3.16 0.32 2.53 3.79 Pre 3.27 0.25 2.78 3.77

Meta- Control Post 2.96 0.19 2.58 3.35

knowledge Pre 2.38 0.27 1.84 2.92

com띠1”ψposition Experimental Post 2.80 0.21 2.38 3.22

In composition metacognitive knowledge, only the main effect of group had a

signific때t effect on the metacognitive knowledge, F(l,73) = 3.99, p = .05, al= 0.02. The

intraction between two main effects of week and group was not signific때t, F(l,73) = 3.43,

p = .07. The experimental group (M = 2.59, SE= .20) had more metaco웰rive knowledge

for composition by showing less distance from expert grading than the control group (M =


204 JaehoChoi

3 .12, SE= .18), regardless of the weeks elapsed.

TABLES

Mixed Model ANOV A Summary for Anxiety and Metacognitive Knowledge

Measure Source SS df MS F p ES(o/)

Between

Group 43.26 43.26 0.08 .78 -0.01

Error 38810.58 73 531.65

Within Anxiety

Week 472.42 472.42 2.59 .II 0.01

Week* Group 733.72 733.72 4.02 .05 0.01

Error (week) 13317.92 73 182.44

Total 53377.91

Between

Group 0.020 0.02 0.00 .95 -0.01

Error 350.11 73 4.80 Meta-

Within knowledge

L2 Week 4.71 4.71 3.19 .08 0.01

Week* Group 12.92 12.92 8.75 .00 0.02

Error (week) 107.81 73 1.48

Total 475.58

Between

Group 10.28 10.28 3.99 .05 0.02

Error 187.91 73 2.57 Meta-

Within knowledge

Week 0.11 0.11 0.08 .78 0.00 co이mpos1t1on

Week* Group 4.99 4.99 3.43 .07 0.01

Eπor(week) 106.12 73 1.45

Total 309.41


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Learning, Composition Skills, … 205

FIGURE3

L2 W꺼ting Anxiety Score

%%%mχ%∞m %%

Pre p。st

--+--(。 ntr。|

--Experimental

FIGURE4

Distance from Expert Grading (L2 Metacognitive Knowledge)

4.50 낀~~~~-------

; . 과‘ 4.00

3 .50

3 .00

2.50

Pre Post

4.4. 04: Relationship Between Factors

Experimental

To examine how much affective and metacognitive factors predict actual L2 knowledge

and composition skills, the relationship between anxiety, metacognitive knowledge, and L2

knowledge and composition skills were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. The

analysis was done for L2 knowledge and composition skills, respectively. The results of

the regression on L2 knowledge indicated the predictor, writing anxiety, explained 7.4% of

the L2 knowledge v때ance, R2 = .09, F(l,73) = 6.87, p = .01. Writing anxiety significantly

predicted the level of L2 knowledge (t = -2.62, p = .이), but L2 metacognitive knowledge

did not (t = -1.87,p = .07). Analysis of the results for composition skills revealed that only

writing anxiety significantly predicted the level of composition skill (t = -2. I I, p = .04),

and the regression model including writing anxiety explained 4.5% of composition skills


206 Jaeho Choi

V따iance, R2 = .06, F(l,73) = 4.47,p = .04.

The results suggested that wri띠tg anxiety predicts both the level of L2 knowledge and

composition skills at the final timed writing, while metacognitive knowledge was not a

significant predictor of these factors.

5. DISCUSSION

The study results reveal that peer feedback and teacher feedback differed in many ways.

The teacher provided a number of instances of negative L2 feedback, some composition

feedback, and little positive feedback. On the contr와y, students gave their peers some

positive and negative feedback, while negative L2 was given the least. Unlike the teacher,

who gave a number of direct and indirect L2 feedback, students were extremely reluctant

to give L2 corrective feedback. The results indicate that the teacher seems to have an

obligation to correct errors on students' papers, while students may not feel confident to

give corrective feedback; instead, they prefer giving positive comments. The results show

that teacher and peer feedback can be complementary (Berg, 1999; Caulk, 1994; Chaudron,

1984 ). However, there are possible effects of the different delivery methods between

teacher and peer feedback. Using the πack-change function of a word processor progr없n,

the teacher could provide corrective feedback more easily than the students, who had to

write down the feedback in separate boxes on SWoRD.

In addition, students' responses to the given feedback differed between teacher and

student feedback. Students responded to 81% of L2 teacher feedback and 54% of

composition teacher feedback, but to 41 % of L2 peer feedback and 25% of composition

peer feedback. Tsui and Ng (2000) explained the different response rates as a matter of

ownership. With peer feedback, students have more autonomy over their own text and

make their own decisions to respond, while they σeat teacher feedback more

authoritatively (Tsui & Ng, 2000). The tendency to be more responsive to L2 and direct

feedback than to composition and indirect feedback was also observed in previous studies

(Paulus, 1999). With direct feedback, students can easily recognize or notice the errors and

internalize the correct form with the information provided by reviewers (Bitchener &

Knoch, 2010; Chandler, 2003). On the other hand, composition feedback requires macro

level changes which are quite challenging, while L2 feedback mostly concerns word,

phrase, or sentence level accuracy.

In the measures of L2 knowledge and composition skills over time, only L2 knowledge

increased both in the teacher-only and teacher-peer-integrated groups. However, the

integrated group improved significantly more. πte results mean that both types of

feedback were helpful for increasing L2 knowledge; thus, the integrated group, which



received both types of feedback, ouφerformed the teacher-only group. However, there

were very few L2 comments in the peer feedback. Therefore, the effects of peer feedback

behaviors seem to have benefited from giving feedback rather than receiving feedback.

The benefits of giving feedback are well documented (Althauser & Darnall, 2001; Cho &

MacArthur, 2011; Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2010; Lundsσom & Baker, 2009).

The effects of teacher-peer-combined feedback were also shown to improve L2

metacognition and reduce L2 W디ting anxiety. η1e findings are congruent with previous

studies that supported the effects of peer feedback in lowering anxiety (Kurt & Atay, 2007),

developing self-monitoring skills (Cho, Cho, & Hacker, 2010), and better understanding

other’s writing and revising their own writing critically (Rollinson, 2005). The additional

regression analysis revealed that L2 writing 없ixiety is the only predictor of the level of L2

knowledge and composition skills.

In conclusion, this study identified peer feedback combined with teacher feedback as

beneficial for increasing L2 knowledge and lower L2 writing 없ixiety. 까ie effects of

providing peer feedback were assumed to be greater than receiving peer feedback. In

addition, the study results allow for co매ecture on the different order or pace of

development between the two subcategories of L2 writing skills, L2 knowledge and

composition skills. The observed differences between L2 knowledge and composition

skills in several measurements S맹gested that composition skills may require more time to

develop because they involve organization, idea development, and the voice of the whole

passage. Last, the effects of teacher-peer-combined feedback are more obvious and

immediate in the affective aspects of L2 writing than in the cognitive ones.

6.IMP니CATIONS AND 니MITATIONS

The research findings have educational implications for L2 writing classrooms. First,

peer feedback can be most effective when it is combined with teacher feedback due to the

complementary nature of the nνo types of feedback. π1erefore, a teacher needs to present

both teacher feedback and student feedback and encourage autonomous and multiple peer

feedback, instead of demanding teacher-like peer feedback. Second, the insσuctional goals

and teaching strategies need to be established, including both L2 learning and composition

skills. In other words, the statement of learning goals clarifies what L2 knowledge is

targeted and what level of composition skills is to be achieved. Teaching strategies are to

be selected and modified to address the different time period for learning and scopes of

cognitive engagement required for composition skills and L2 knowledge. Third, the

importance of the affective aspects of writing should be properly appreciated. As shown in

the obvious effects of writing 없ixiety in this study, activities alleviating writing anxiety can


208 Jaeho Choi

be most effective in improving students' writing. Therefore, a teacher needs to create a

friendly and supportive L2 writing class by encouraging interactive peer feedback.

Although this study presents meaningful findings and applicable implications for L2

writing class, there are several limitations that should be considered in interpreting the

results and applying them in L2 writing classrooms. First, the short period of research and

the number of writing tasks make it difficult to observe improvement in writing skills and

to generalize the results. Second, the research participants were from a homogeneous group,

students enrolled in an intermediate English course at a college, and the results may not be

applicable to a different population. In addition, the lack of rigorous control in the research

was problematic. For instance, the different feedback delivery methods probably

influenced feedback perform뻐ce between teacher and peer feedback. In addition, because

students used an online progr없n, SWoRD, for peer feedback, the level of computer skills

or 때nili따께 with online programs might affect students' performance and their writing

anxiety. 까ms, future studies with a diverse and large population are su잃ested, for a longer

pe디od, and by controlling mediating factors in L2 writing.

REFERENCES

Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001 ). Enhancing critical reading and writing through peer

reviews: An exploration of assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29, 23-35.

Beirne-Smith, M. ( 1991 ). Peer tutoring in arithmetic for children with learning disabilities.

Exceptional Children, 5π4), 330-337.

Berg, E. C. ( 1999). 까ie effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types

and writing quality. ‘Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17, 102-118.

Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A

response to “Overgeneralization from a n없row focus: A response to Bitchener

(2008).” Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 276-279.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective

feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2

writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,

19(4), 207-217

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective

feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language }싸iting, 14(3), 227-

258.



Catterall, M. (1995). Peer learning research in marketing. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A.

Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing student learning through peer tutoring in h땅her

education: Section 3:/mplementing Vol. 1 (pp. 54-62). Coleraine, Northern Ireland:

University of Ulster.

Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL

Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.

Chandler, J. (2003). 까1e efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the

accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,

12(3), 267-296.

Chaudron, C. (1984). Eff농cts offeedback on revision. RELC Journal, 15, 1-14.

Cheng, Y. (2004). A measure of second language writing 없ixiety: Scale development and

preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 313-335.

Cheng, Y. C., & Ku, H. Y. (2009). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer

tutoring. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 40-49.

Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional

Science, 39(5), 629-643.

Cho, K., Cho, M., & Hacker, D. J. (2010). Self-monitoring support for learning to write.

Interactive learning Environments, 18(2), 101-113.

Cho, K., & MacArth따, C. (2011 ). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 103(1), 73-84.

Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A

web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.

Cho. K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Valid띠 and reliability of scaffolded peer

assessment of writing from insπuctor and student perspectives. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 98( 4 ), 891-9이 .

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). 까1e effects of focused and

unfocused written coπective feedback in an English as a foreign language context.

System, 36(3), 353-371.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects ofreciprocal

peer tutoring on academic achievement and psych이ogical adjustment: A

component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (2 ), 173-177.

Ferris, D. (1999). π1e case of granimar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to

Truscott ( 1996). Journal of Second Language Wri때g, 8(1), 1-11.

Ferris, D. (2004). 까1e “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and

where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of

Second Language Writing, 13( 1 ), 49-62.

Ferris, D. (2006). Does eπor feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short

and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyl때d (Eds.),


210 Jaeho Choi

Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and

practice (2"d ed.). NJ: Mahwah.

Ferris, D., Liu, H., Si띠1a, A., & Senna, M. (2012). Written corrective feedback for

individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,

http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An

evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement‘ Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 15(2), 85-91.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted le앙ning

sπategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational

Research Journal, 34(1 ), 174-206.

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., On맹ena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the

effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 2α 304-315.

Horwitz, E. (2001 ). L뻐guage anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 21 , 112-126.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (l 986). Foreign l때맹age classroom anxiety. Modern

Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Jones, R., Garralda, A., Li, D., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and

face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second

Language Wri‘ting, 15, 1-23.

Kachru, B. B. (l 986). The alchemy of English. New York: Pergamon Press.

Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the w디ting 없ixiety of

prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Journal of재eory and Practice in Education,

3(1), 12-23.

Lalande, J. F. (l 982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language

Journal, 66(2), 140-149.

Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning

improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 41, 525-536.

Lundsσom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: π1e benefits of peer

review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-

43.

Macintyre, P. D. (1999). Language 없ixiety: A review of research for language teachers. In

D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in fore핑n language and second language learning: A

practz띠l guide to creating a low anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 24-45).

Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Learning, Composition Skills, ... 21 I

Manch6n, R. (2009). Broadening the perspective of L2 writing sch이arship: 까ie

conσibution ofresearch on foreign language writing. In R. Manch6n (Ed.), Writing

in fore땅n language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1-19). Bristol,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Manch6n, R. (2이 1 ). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R.

Manch6n (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language

(pp. 61-84). Amsterd때, The Netherl뻐ds: John Be매amins Publishing.

Matsuda, P. K. ( 1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written

Communication, 15(1 ), 99-121.

Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing 띠 the 20th century: A historical

perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing

(pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher

feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, I 5,

179-200.

Min, H. (2006). πie effects of trained peer response on EFL students’ revision types and

writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, I 5(2), 118-141.

Nayar, P. B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL

Quarterly, 3 I ( 1 ), 9-3 7. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal

of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written cπor

correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389.

Raimes, A. ( 1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of

composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59( 1 ),

23-30.

Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., & Rada, R. (1993). Peer assessment in a collaborative

hypermedia environment: A case-study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,

20, 75-80.

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a

blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of

foreign language writing. In R. Manch6n (Ed.), Writing in foreign language

contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Bristol, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude

on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.

Taylor, I. (1995). Understanding computer software: Using peer tutoring in the


212 Jaeho Choi

development of understanding of some aspects of computer software. In S.

Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing student learning through

peer tutoring in higher education: Section 3:/mplementing Vol. l (pp. 87-89).

Coleraine, Northern Ireland: University of Ulster.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment

of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 25, 149-169.

Truscott, J. ( 1996). π1e case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language

Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J. ( 1999). 까1e case for “π1e case against grammar correction in L2 writing

classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.

Tsai, P., & Cheng, Y. (2009). The effects of rhetorical task type, English proficiency, and

writing anxi며 on senior high sch。이 students’ English writing performance.

English Teaching & Learning, 33(3), 95-131.

Ts버, A. ( 1996). Reticence and a뼈ety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D.

Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145-167). C때bridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal

of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

Van Beuningen, G. (2이 0). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,

empirical insi야ts, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies,

10(2), 1-27.

Van Beuningen, G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). η1e effect of direct and indirect

corrective feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. Iπ International Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.

Wager, C. L. (1991). Peer tutoring: When working together is better than working alone.

Research & Resources on φecial Education, 3α 345-459.

Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching,

TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535.

Woodrow, L. (2011). C이lege English writing affect: Self-efficacy and 없ixiety. System, 39,

510-522.

Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization 잠om a n짧ow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008)

and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second language 짜iting, 18(4), 270-275.

Young, D. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency


Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers' L2 Learning, Composition Skills,... 213

ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 19(5), 439-445.

Applicable levels: Secondary, post-secondary

Jaeho Choi

Department of English Language Education

College of Education, Sangmyung University

7 Hongji-dong, Jongno-gu

Seoul 110-743, Korea

Phone: 02-2287-5098

Fax: 02-2287-0065

E-mail: 21 [email protected]

Received in June 2013

Reviewed in July 2013

Revised version received in August 2013


if7l쏘기’뭘어과를환훌


does peer feedback affect l2 writers' l2 learning, composition...

Documents