UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Peer response and second language writers Tithecott, Eileen Joan 1997

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1997-0489.pdf [ 4.76MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078139.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078139+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078139.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078139+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078139+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078139+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078139 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078139.txt
Citation
1.0078139.ris

Full Text

P E E R  R E S P O N S E  A N D  S E C O N D  L A N G U A G E  W R I T E R S  by E I L E E N  J O A N  T I T H E C O T T  B.A., Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , 1961 THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA August  1997  © E i l e e n Joan T i t h e c o t t ,  1997  In  presenting  degree at the  this  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  this thesis for  department  or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department  r^T^uJLp/.  of  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  o  DE-6 (2/88)  I  1 1  Abstract  This study e x p l o r e d the value of peer response w i t h second conducted  language  students learning w r i t i n g .  I t was  i n a s m a l l u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e w i t h 12  international  s t u d e n t s f r o m A s i a , most o f whom w e r e i n  Canada t o improve  t h e i r English i n order to e n r o l l i n  u n i v e r s i t y and c o l l e g e  programs.  The s t u d y s p e c i f i c a l l y of  groups  i n v e s t i g a t e d a) t h e p e r c e p t i o n s  s t u d e n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o p e e r r e s p o n s e b) w h e t h e r  those  p e r c e p t i o n s c h a n g e d o v e r t h e l e n g t h o f t h e s t u d y c) what students a c t u a l l y d i d d u r i n g the response  s e s s i o n s and  f i n a l l y d) how t h e y c h a n g e d t h e i r e s s a y s a s a r e s u l t o f participating  i n the sessions.  S t u d e n t s were a s k e d t o submit d u r i n g the course of the semester the peer response s e s s i o n the groups transcribed. collected.  sessions.  three journal  entries  d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r views of  D u r i n g one p e e r  response  were a u d i o t a p e d and t h o s e t a p e s were  D r a f t e s s a y s and f i n a l  c o p i e s were  Throughout t h e course o f t h e semester  also I kept  a  j o u r n a l o f my o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d t h o u g h t s . Journal entries, discussed.  and t r a n s c r i p t s were a n a l y z e d and  D r a f t s o f e s s a y s and f i n a l  c o p i e s were compared  I l l  to  a s c e r t a i n what c h a n g e s had  Finally,  b e e n made b y t h e  t h e c h a n g e s were a n a l y z e d t o d e t e r m i n e  t h e r e s u l t o f comments made by p e e r s An  writers.  students,  f r o m c u l t u r e s where c l a s s e s a r e  traditionally  t e a c h e r - c e n t e r e d tended  peer response  and became somewhat more p o s i t i v e a s  semester progressed. response  but  During  v a r i e t y of s o c i a l ,  they worked t o accomplish  as  I had  hoped.  about  the  mainly  centered  peer  around  the s e s s i o n s s t u d e n t s engaged i n a  c o g n i t i v e and  r e v i s e t h e i r essays  t o be p o s i t i v e  They a p p r e c i a t e d t h e b e n e f i t s o f  d i d h a v e some c o n c e r n s ,  peer feedback.  were  d u r i n g the s e s s i o n s .  a n a l y s i s of the data r e v e a l e d t h a t the  a l t h o u g h A s i a n and  i f they  linguistic activities  the assigned task.  Students  u s i n g p e e r comments a l t h o u g h n o t  Comments by some o f t h e s t u d e n t s  as did  a s much  indicated  they r e s e r v e d the r i g h t to decide whether t o f o l l o w the a d v i c e g i v e n by t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s R e s u l t s suggest  or  not.  that i t i s important  c o n t i n u e t o use p e e r response  f o r teachers  s e s s i o n s even w i t h  students  f r o m c u l t u r e s where t e a c h e r - c e n t e r e d c l a s s e s a r e t h e s i n c e b e n e f i t s seem t o o u t w e i g h  disadvantages.  to  norm  iv TABLE OF  CONTENTS  Abstract Table of Contents L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgments CHAPTER I Introduction Purpose of the Study Background t o the Study Peer Response Groups ' S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study Scope o f t h e S t u d y L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study Organization of the Thesis  i i i i i iv v vi  1 1 2 3 7 7 8 8  II  Review of L i t e r a t u r e The P r o c e s s A p p r o a c h t o W r i t i n g Cooperative Learning G r o u p s and L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s o f Language L e a r n i n g P e e r R e s p o n s e i n t h e ESL W r i t i n g C l a s s r o o m Peer I n t e r a c t i o n I m p a c t on R e v i s i o n P r e f e r e n c e f o r Types o f Feedback Student P e r c e p t i o n s Journal Writing  10 14 18 20 22 24 25 28 32 34 36  III  Methodology The C o n t e x t Placement of Students The CESL P r o g r a m The P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e R e s e a r c h The C o u r s e The C l a s s Past Approaches t o R e v i s i o n The P e e r R e s p o n s e M o d e l Reasons f o r C h o o s i n g the Model Conduct o f t h e Study Language T r a i n i n g The T e a c h e r ' s R o l e The F i r s t P e e r R e s p o n s e S e s s i o n  43 43 44 45 46 53 54 56 60 62 66 67 69 71  Subsequent Peer Response S e s s i o n s Data C o l l e c t i o n A n a l y s i s o f t h e Data P e r c e p t i o n s o f Peer Response S e s s i o n s A n a l y s i s o f S t u d e n t Comments A n a l y s i s o f Changes i n S t u d e n t s ' Perceptions Peer Response I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s o f Peer Response on R e v i s i o n  IV  R e s u l t s of the Study  76 77 80 80 82 85 85 87  88  Students' p e r c e p t i o n s of peer response s e s s i o n s v a r i e d from student t o s t u d e n t .  88  Student p e r c e p t i o n s of peer response s e s s i o n s changed o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t h e semester.  90  S t u d e n t s saw t h e b e n e f i t s o f E l b o w ' s (1973) model o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s b u t had c o n c e r n s about c e r t a i n a s p e c t s as w e l l .  94  Students had problems w i t h t h e concept of peer feedback.  99  S t u d e n t s engaged i n f i v e activities.  102  sociocognitive  Students provided s c a f f o l d i n g i n peer response sessions.  107  Students displayed both c o l l a b o r a t i v e and n o n - c o l l a b o r a t i v e b e h a v i o u r .  I l l  Students displayed a f f e c t i n t h e i r b e h a v i o u r when w o r k i n g i n p e e r r e s p o n s e groups.  113  Some s t u d e n t s u s e d f e e d b a c k f r o m p e e r response sessions i n r e v i s i n g t h e i r essays.  115  vi B o t h l e s s p r o f i c i e n t a n d more p r o f i c i e n t students b e n e f i t e d from peer response sessions.  V  Discussion  and I m p l i c a t i o n s  S t u d e n t s ' P e r c e p t i o n s o f Peer Response Changes i n P e r c e p t i o n s o v e r t h e Semester B e n e f i t s and Concerns Peer I n t e r a c t i o n Revision Feedback I s s u e s Implications f o r Teaching Implications f o r Research Summary References  118  123 123 12 6 128 129 131 132. 134 137 13 8 141  vii L i s t of Tables T a b l e 4.1  Holistic  Ratings of Journal E n t r i e s  T a b l e 5.1  Comparison of H o l i s t i c Asian Participants  Ratings  T a b l e 5.2  Comparison of H o l i s t i c A l l Participants  Ratings  89 124  126  viii List Figure  Figure  Figure  3.1  3.2  3.3  of  Figures  Sample o f n o t e s t a k e n d u r i n g response s e s s i o n  peer  F a c i l i t a t i v e phrases i n peer sessions  response  I n h i b i t i n g phrases i n peer sessions  61  68  response 69  ix Acknowledgment s I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o my a d v i s o r , D r . G l o r i a Tang f o r h e r u n f a i l i n g p a t i e n c e and g r a c i o u s a s s i s t a n c e as I worked t o complete t h i s p r o j e c t . To my f r i e n d a n d c o l l e a g u e , L i n d a , I e x t e n d my t h a n k s f o r h e r t i m e and h e r w i l l i n g n e s s t o l i s t e n . To my f a m i l y , C a t h e r i n e , P a u l and i n p a r t i c u l a r Howard, J a n i c e a n d L i n d s a y I am d e e p l y g r a t e f u l . Without your encouragement, y o u r h e l p and a t t i m e s y o u r s a c r i f i c e s , I w o u l d n e v e r h a v e b e e n a b l e t o a c h i e v e my g o a l s . J.T.  1 CHAPTER ONE  Introduction  Purpose o f t h e Study The research, in  purpose of t h i s study i s t o explore,  through  t h e v a l u e o f peer response groups as t h e y  one s e c o n d l a n g u a g e c l a s s r o o m .  action  function  More s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e  s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e s w h e t h e r o r n o t a n d t o what e x t e n t students benefit  from responding t o t h e w r i t i n g o f t h e i r  c l a s s m a t e s and from r e c e i v i n g t h e r e s p o n s e s o f t h e i r to the  t h e i r own w o r k .  This study addresses a r e a l  part of both w r i t i n g  c o n c e r n on  i n s t r u c t o r s and t h e i r s t u d e n t s  r e g a r d i n g whether peer response s e s s i o n s promote development i n t h e classroom. the  r e s u l t s of the study w i l l  the  i n f o r m t e a c h i n g and improve  questions:  What a r e t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d i n peer response  2.  1991).  study seeks t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n i n response t o  following 1.  writing  The u n d e r s t a n d i n g g a i n e d f r o m  learning conditions f o r students ( E l l i o t t , The  peers  sessions?  Do s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f p e e r r e s p o n s e over t h e course of a semester?  change  2 3.  What do s t u d e n t s do d u r i n g p e e r  4.  What w i l l  I l e a r n about peer  that w i l l  i n f o r m a n d i m p r o v e my  response  response  sessions?  sessions  teaching?  Background t o t h e Study Post-secondary  institutions  i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and  Canada a r e a c t i v e l y r e c r u i t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l t h e i r campuses. economic.  The r e a s o n s  The r e s u l t  E n g l i s h i s a second  f o r t h i s a r e both p o l i t i c a l and  i s t h a t enrolment  language  students t o  o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom  (ESL) s t u d e n t s i s s t e a d i l y  i n c r e a s i n g e v e n i n s m a l l u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e s away f r o m urban centers..  At t h i s u n i v e r s i t y college,  College of the Cariboo, 400  international  which  major  the . U n i v e r s i t y  f o r example, t h e r e a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y  s t u d e n t s a n d 20 f u l l - t i m e ESL i n s t r u c t o r s  represents a f o u r f o l d increase i n the past  decade.  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , s t u d e n t s , m a i n l y from A s i a a t t h i s college, diploma  a r e i n North America and degree programs.  are t h e i r l i v i n g  t o complete  certificate,  Their tuition  fees a r e h i g h as  expenses, and they f i n d themselves  under  c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e t o f i n i s h t h e i r e d u c a t i o n as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e .  However, t h e i r f a c i l i t y w i t h E n g l i s h f o r  academic purposes  v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y from student t o  s t u d e n t , a n d some i n d i v i d u a l s n e e d a d d i t i o n a l  language  i n s t r u c t i o n and support b e f o r e t h e y a r e a b l e t o e n r o l l i n mainstream c o u r s e s and programs. Typically,  t h e s e s t u d e n t s a r e p l a c e d i n ESL c l a s s e s t o  improve t h e i r E n g l i s h .  Clearly,  there are advantages t o  b e i n g i n a s u p p o r t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t where a l l t h e s t u d e n t s h a v e e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t a r e s i m i l a r a n d where i n s t r u c t o r s a r e trained  t o a s s i s t students w i t h t h e i r language  International quickly  s t u d e n t s a r e , however,  development.  anxious t o proceed as  as p o s s i b l e towards t h e i r g o a l s and f i n d i n g  they  must t a k e p r e p a r a t o r y ESL c o u r s e s i s o f t e n d i s a p p o i n t i n g f o r them.  Acknowledging the sense-of urgency that i s an.ever-  present fact of l i f e instructors  f o r many o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s ,  writing  a r e concerned t h a t c l a s s r o o m approaches and  a c t i v i t i e s promote  language a c q u i s i t i o n ,  p e r c e i v e d t o promote  Peer Response  language  and, i n d e e d , a r e  acquisition.  Groups  One a p p r o a c h t o p r o m o t i n g l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n use o f p e e r response groups i n t h e w r i t i n g  i s the  classroom.  use o f such groups has i n c r e a s e d w i t h t h e s h i f t p r o c e s s approach t o w r i t i n g and t h e consequent  The  to the emphasis  on  4 helping students to acquire strategies  "for getting  started...for drafting...for revising...and for editing (Silva, My  1990,  p.15).  interest  i n p e e r r e s p o n s e was  k i n d l e d by  Urzua's  (1987) s t u d y o f f o u r S o u t h - E a s t A s i a n c h i l d r e n a s  they  s h a r e d t h e i r w r i t i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r and t h e i r t e a c h e r . b e n e f i t s t h e y g a i n e d were r e a l :  an i n c r e a s e d a w a r e n e s s o f  a u d i e n c e , a sense o f v o i c e and a sense o f t h e power o f language.  Her  o l d e r ESL way  f i n d i n g s . s o i m p r e s s e d me  s t u d e n t s would  The  t h a t I wondered i f  r e s p o n d and b e n e f i t  t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a l k about  the  in a  their writing  similar with  t h e i r peers. In s e a r c h i n g the l i t e r a t u r e  f o r studies conducted  c o l l e g e students, I found s e v e r a l q u a l i t a t i v e  with  reports.  T h e s e f o c u s e d on t h e b e n e f i t s o f p e e r r e s p o n s e a s r e p o r t e d by t h e s t u d e n t s , y e t n o t e d a number o f c o n c e r n s a s (Obah, 1993;  J a c o b s , 1987;  D a v i e s a n d Omberg, 1 9 8 8 ) .  not s u r p r i s i n g t o read t h a t  "the c o n f l i c t s  was  approach"  and  f e l t by p r a c t i t i o n e r s a r e p a r a l l e l e d i n  t h e s m a l l b o d y o f r e s e a r c h so f a r c o n d u c t e d on groups"  It  " p r a c t i t i o n e r s are deeply  d i v i d e d as t o t h e e f f i c a c y o f t h e s m a l l g r o u p that  well  ( D i p a r d o & Freedman,  1988).  response  5 C o n t i n u i n g to i n v e s t i g a t e the l i t e r a t u r e of groups I found specific (1992),  response  that researchers turned t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to  aspects of peer response.  Nelson  and  Murphy  f o r example, i n v e s t i g a t e d whether f o u r s t u d e n t s  w o r k e d t o g e t h e r u s e d p e e r comments i n r e v i s i n g t h e i r Students  w e r e g i v e n g u i d i n g q u e s t i o n s and  on o t h e r s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s "  (p.136).  The  "wrote  and  Johnson  researchers  and  of peer response  (1992) i n a . s t u d y  groups,  from  of the A s i a n  negative o p i n i o n s of peer  response  thought  looked  less  other participants  response  T h e s e f i n d i n g s w e r e s t a r t l i n g t o me  s t u d e n t s came m a i n l y  in their  o f what s t u d e n t s  discovered that Asian students  T h i r t y - t h r e e percent  i n h e r s t u d y had  in  instruction.  f a v o u r a b l y on t h i s a c t i v i t y t h a n s t u d e n t s  As  Mendonca  and  t h e y recommended t h e i n c l u s i o n o f p e e r  Manglesdorf  sessions.  students  Similarly,  t h e i r e f f e c t on r e v i s i o n s ,  i n second language w r i t i n g  countries.  also  (1994) s t u d i e d t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t o c c u r r e d  the peer reviews discussion,  suggestions.  drafts.  responses  i n v e s t i g a t e d the f a c t o r s that c o n t r i b u t e d to the u s i n g or not u s i n g peers'  who  since  my  from c o u n t r i e s i n A s i a .  a r e s u l t o f r e a d i n g t h e l i t e r a t u r e on p e e r  response  I concluded  study  t h a t I n e e d e d t o c o n d u c t my  own  of  6 p e e r r e s p o n s e groups, a s . t h e y f u n c t i o n e d i n my c l a s s r o o m . Through  p l a n n i n g t o use t h e groups, t a k i n g a c t i o n t o  implement  them a n d m o n i t o r i n g t h e i r p r o g r e s s a s  comprehensively as p o s s i b l e ,  I w o u l d come t o u n d e r s t a n d what  my s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f p e e r r e s p o n s e w e r e , I w o u l d a s c e r t a i n what s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y d i d d u r i n g s e s s i o n s , would  and I  s e e what s t u d e n t s r e v i s e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e f e e d b a c k  from peers.  O n l y when I h a d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d  p o s s i b l e t o i m p r o v e my p r a c t i c e a n d , a s a improve  i t be  consequence,  l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r my s t u d e n t s .  My p u r p o s e  then i n c o n d u c t i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h , t o improve  my p r a c t i c e i n my w r i t i n g c l a s s e s , made t h e c h o i c e o f a c t i o n r e s e a r c h a l o g i c a l one s i n c e i t "aims t o f e e d p r a c t i c a l judgment i n c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s " was  (Elliott,  1991, p . 6 9 ) .  It  my hope t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w o u l d s u p p o r t o t h e r  s t u d i e s i n a p o s i t i v e way.  M a i n l y , however, I e x p e c t e d  that  w i t h a b e t t e r understanding of the peer response process that  I w o u l d be a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r  outweighed  t h e concerns and whether  c o n c e r n s m i g h t be  m i t i g a t e d and s t u d e n t p e r c e p t i o n s changed process.  . •••  the advantages  by changes  to the  7  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the T h i s s t u d y was participating  Study b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n  that  i n peer response sessions i s a worthwhile,  enriching activity writing, classroom. a comprehensive  f o r students i n the second  language  I expected that examining the process i n  manner w o u l d p r o v i d e r e a s o n s why  this  i s so.  .1 a l s o e x p e c t e d t h a t t h i s e x p l o r a t i o n w o u l d e x p l a i n what problems  or concerns e x i s t w i t h peer response groups  suggest.ways  t o improve the conduct of peer  and  response  s e s s i o n s i n w r i t i n g c l a s s r o o m s and c o n s e q u e n t l y , improve learning conditions f o r students.  Scope o f t h e The  Study  s t u d y was  b a s e d on d a t a c o l l e c t e d i n one  ESL  w r i t i n g c l a s s with twelve students of A s i a n o r i g i n .  These  s t u d e n t s i n t h r e e g r o u p s of- f o u r w o r k e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e s e m e s t e r s h a r i n g and r e s p o n d i n g t o each o t h e r ' s e s s a y s . W r i t i n g a b i l i t y v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y w i t h i n each I collected journal entries for analysis,  group. journal  e n t r i e s c o n c e r n i n g students' p e r c e p t i o n s of the peer response process.  The p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s f o c u s i n g  on  8 the  f o u r t h e s s a y o f t h e s e m e s t e r were r e c o r d e d , and  recordings transcribed for analysis.  Finally,  first  the and  s e c o n d d r a f t s w e r e c o m p a r e d t o e a c h o t h e r and t h e n i n t u r n , compared t o t h e p e e r t a l k d u r i n g t h e s e s s i o n . the  In t h i s  i m p a c t o f the- s e s s i o n s •• on e s s a y r e v i s i o n was  L i m i t a t i o n s of the  determined.  Study  B e c a u s e t h i s i s an e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d y o f a s m a l l of  participants,  to  a l l p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s w i t h ESL  will  number  t h e r e s u l t s c a n n o t be g e n e r a l i z e d t o a p p l y  .point i n t h e i r w r i t i n g It  way  students at a  similar  development.  i s e x p e c t e d , however, t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y  support other research i n t h i s f i e l d ,  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how  adding to the  p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s f u n c t i o n and  t h e y a r e v i e w e d b y p o s t - s e c o n d a r y ESL  how  students of A s i a n  background.  O r g a n i z a t i o n of the T h e s i s In  t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , C h a p t e r Two,  the p r o f e s s i o n a l  l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g t o peer response groups i n second language w r i t i n g classrooms i s reviewed.  9 Chapter Three o u t l i n e s the methodology used i n the study.  I t d e s c r i b e s the context of the study,  participants, how  d e t a i l s t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a and e x p l a i n s  t h e d a t a were The  the  analyzed.  f o u r t h chapter presents the f i n d i n g s of the  S i n c e t h i s was  an e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d y , t h e s e  a c c u r a t e l y o b s e r v a t i o n s and  study.  f i n d i n g s a r e more  a r e so d e s i g n a t e d i n t h i s  chapter. Finally,  Chapter F i v e d i s c u s s e s the o b s e r v a t i o n s  and  c o n s i d e r s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y f o r t e a c h i n g and further research.  for  10  CHAPTER  TWO  Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e  P e e r r e s p o n s e groups a r e an i n c r e a s i n g l y f r e q u e n t f e a t u r e o f second language w r i t i n g classrooms.  P e e r ..  r e s p o n s e groups, s t a n d . a t t h e c e n t e r o f a f o r t u i t o u s convergence o f t h e o r i e s o f language development,  and  t h e o r i e s o f language l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g i n second language classrooms.  To e x p l i c a t e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s o f w h i c h p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s a r e t h e embodiment, t h e r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e examines f i r s t  the process approach t o w r i t i n g ,  an a p p r o a c h i n i t i a l l y p u t f o r t h by f i r s t researchers  language  ( F l o w e r & H a y e s , 1981) a n d l a t e r i n v e s t i g a t e d b y  second language w r i t i n g s c h o l a r s and t e a c h e r s (Raimes, 1985; Zamel,  1983) .  The p r o c e s s a p p r o a c h t o w r i t i n g h a s a t i t s  heart, evaluation w r i t e r s reread, do s o b e c a u s e  (Hilgers,  1986; Samway, 1 9 9 3 ) .  When  c h a n g e t e x t , g a t h e r more i n f o r m a t i o n ,  t h e y have e v a l u a t e d t h e i r work.  they  Peer response  groups p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p e e r s t o d e v e l o p c r i t e r i a •  11 f o r e v a l u a t i o n a n d t o p r a c t i c e e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r own w r i t t e n t e x t and t h a t o f o t h e r s .  In the communicative language classroom, on  student-centered  traditional  the focus i s  l e a r n i n g a s o p p o s e d t o t h e more  teacher-fronted class  (Savignon,  1991).  c e r t a i n l y i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e t e a c h e r i s s t i l l part of classroom  activity,  While  a significant  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o use groups a r e  s e i z e d when t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o l e a r n i n g o f t h o s e g r o u p s i s evident to p r a c t i t i o n e r s . writing  Peer response  groups a l l o w the  i n s t r u c t o r t o move t o w a r d s a more e q u i t a b l e b a l a n c e •  between t e a c h e r - c e n t e r e d  i n s t r u c t i o n and s t u d e n t - c e n t e r e d  activities.  The  main advantage of s t u d e n t - c e n t e r e d  activities, i f  they are c o r r e c t l y s t r u c t u r e d , i s the increased opportunity, indeed  t h e n e c e s s i t y , on t h e p a r t o f s t u d e n t s t o n e g o t i a t e  meaning. p.  "Negotiated  217) i s a c r u c i a l  interaction"  f a c t o r i n second language  When members o f a p e e r r e s p o n s e make m e a n i n g c o m p r e h e n s i b l e  language.  group converse  and t o a c c o m p l i s h  have been g i v e n , t h e y e x p e r i e n c e acquire  (Gass a n d S e l i n k e r , 1994, acquisition. i n order to the task  they  increased opportunity to  12 Cooperative language l e a r n i n g i n i t s v a r i o u s employs  forms  s t r u c t u r e s , and t a s k s w h i c h r e q u i r e s t u d e n t s t o work  t o g e t h e r u s u a l l y on a group p r o j e c t .  The b e n e f i t s o f u s i n g  c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g ' s t r a t e g i e s a r e w e l l r e s e a r c h e d and numerous. social  They i n c l u d e academic a c h i e v e m e n t ,  relations,  development, (Coelho,  i n c r e a s e d s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and language  f o r both f i r s t  1992;. S l a v i n ,  Finally, Vygotsky's  improved  and second language s t u d e n t s  1991) .  w i t h t h e t r a n s l a t i o n and p o p u l a r i z a t i o n o f  (1986) t h e o r i e s o f l a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t ,  r e s e a r c h e r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s a r e becoming  cognizant of the  importance of speech i n l e a r n i n g a language. l e a r n i n g comes a b o u t a s a r e s u l t o f s o c i a l  more  For Vygotsky  interaction.  c o n c e p t o f t h e "zone o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t "  His  presupposes  two p e r s o n s w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r , one more c a p a b l e who  provides  a s s i s t a n c e s o . t h a t t h e o t h e r c a n a c c o m p l i s h more t h a n he might a l o n e . - Peer r e s p o n s e groups formed so t h a t t h e y a r e heterogeneous i n a b i l i t y a f f o r d l e s s p r o f i c i e n t  writing  s t u d e n t s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o be a s s i s t e d b y more c a p a b l e p e e r s a n d t h u s a c c o m p l i s h more t h a n t h e y m i g h t a c c o m p l i s h a l o n e .  13 Before examining the research i n t o peer groups,  their  chapter w i l l  response  f u n c t i o n i n g and t h e i r impact, t h e r e f o r e ,  this  review the l i t e r a t u r e o f :  1. The p r o c e s s a p p r o a c h t o w r i t i n g ,  2. C o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g ,  3 . Groups and language  4. T h e o r i e s o f l a n g u a g e  The f i n a l of  element  learning,  and  learning.  o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w i s an e x p l i c a t i o n  t h e use o f j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as an e v a l u a t i v e t o o l .  For  students, a s s e s s i n g the peer response s e s s i o n s completes the circle  as s e t f o r t h by V y g o t s k y  (1986).  In journals,  speech  ( c o n v e r s a t i o n ) becomes t h o u g h t a n d w r i t i n g ,  public  making  t h a t s p e e c h p u b l i c o n c e more a n d t h e r e f o r e a v a i l a b l e a s t h e subject f o r further conversation.  It i s fitting,  t h i s chapter t o conclude w i t h l i t e r a t u r e which e v a l u a t i o n -the c e n t r a l  feature of peer  then, f o r  illuminates  response.  14 The  Process Approach  The  to Writing  process approach  to writing claimed the interest, of  t e a c h e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s i n t h e l a t e  1970's and e a r l y  as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o a f o c u s on form  (Raimes  Researchers  F l o w e r and Hayes  1980's  1991).  (1981) a r t i c u l a t e d a c o g n i t i v e  p r o c e s s t h e o r y o f w r i t i n g based on p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s .  The  cognitive process theory stood i n stark contrast to "the t r a d i t i o n a l paradigm view,  of stages"  the w r i t e r completes  (p.367).  In the t r a d i t i o n a l  one s t a g e t o w a r d s  the desired  w r i t t e n p r o d u c t a n d t h e n i n a l i n e a r f a s h i o n moves o n t o t h e next stage.  However, i n t h e p r o c e s s m o d e l ,  of a n a l y s i s "  (p.367) a r e n o t v i e w e d  processes,  "the major  as s t a g e s b u t as  such as t h e p r o c e s s o f g e n e r a t i n g i d e a s "  F o r F l o w e r and Hayes  (1981),'the a c t o f w r i t i n g  units "mental  (p.367).  involves the  t a s k environment,  t h e w r i t e r ' s l o n g t e r m memory a n d t h e  w r i t i n g process:  planning, translating, reviewing.  P l a n n i n g i s comprised o f g e n e r a t i n g i d e a s , o r g a n i z i n g and goal setting. Vygotsky  thinking  (which a c c o r d i n g t o  i s p r i v a t e speech) t r a n s f o r m s i n t o  language. parts:  In translating,  Finally,  written  r e v i e w i n g i n t h e p r o c e s s model has two  e v a l u a t i n g and r e v i s i n g .  When a w r i t e r  reviews  p r e v i o u s w o r k , t h a t r e v i e w may. l e a d t o f u r t h e r w r i t t e n  text  15 or  to evaluation  is  c l e a r l y n o n - l i n e a r and  The  and r e v i s i o n .  The p r o c e s s o f w r i t i n g  recursive.  research i n t o the process approach i n f i r s t  language  ( L I ) c o m p o s i t i o n p r o m p t e d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e (L2)  theorists  to also  (1982) s t u d i e d  investigate  the w r i t i n g process.  p r o f i c i e n t ESL w r i t e r s  s i m i l a r t o those used by  speakers of English"  (p.203).  implications  Zamel  and d e t e r m i n e d  t h e y "use s t r a t e g i e s  Zamel d i s c u s s e d t h e  o f t h e r e s e a r c h f o r t e a c h i n g i n some  f o rwriting  multiple the  drafts  writing  that  native  detail:  s t u d e n t s need t o t a l k p r i o r t o w r i t i n g t o g e n e r a t e topics  then  ideas;  s h o u l d be c o m p e l l i n g ; t i m e f o r w r i t i n g  i s i m p o r t a n t ; r e v i s i o n becomes t h e f o c u s o f  c o u r s e ; and s t u d e n t s need t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o  share t h e i r w r i t i n g w i t h peers so t h a t w r i t i n g w i t h t h e eyes o f another"  t h e y may s e e " t h e i r  (p.206).  Raimes  (1985)  i n a s i m i l a r s t u d y , t h i s t i m e o f u n s k i l l e d ESL w r i t e r s , found that  students with a l i m i t e d p r o f i c i e n c y  were a b l e t o v i e w w r i t i n g as a p r o c e s s o f meaning and were a b l e t o There were d i f f e r e n c e s ,  i n English  discovering  generate language and  ideas.  h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n t h e u n s k i l l e d L2  s t u d e n t s i n Raimes' s t u d y and u n s k i l l e d L I w r i t e r s . t h e y n e e d i s "more o f e v e r y t h i n g :  more t i m e ; more  "What  16 opportunity to talk...more  i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e  g e n e r a t i n g , o r g a n i z i n g and r e v i s i n g i d e a s " Finally,  (p.250).  t h e s t u d e n t s • i n Raimes'. s t u d y w e r e a n x i o u s t o g e t  i d e a s down o n p a p e r . o f t h e t e a c h e r as address  in  v  In t h e i r w r i t i n g ,  the o n l y audience'  the audience  suggested  s t u d e n t s were aware  and w e r e u n a b l e  i n t h e w r i t i n g prompt. As  consequence o f t h e s t u d y , Raimes s u g g e s t e d e m p l o y t h i n k - a l o u d t e c h n i q u e s as  engage i n a c r e a t i v e d i a l o g u e "  "a t e a c h i n g t o o l  (p.252).  She  s p e c u l a t e d i n h e r d i s c u s s i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s who f o r themselves  and  a  that teachers to provide  an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e w r i t e r t o v e r i f y a n a u d i e n c e  audience  to  and  also establish  " v i e w t h e t a s k a s one  an  of  n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h a r e a d e r m i g h t u l t i m a t e l y make more p r o g r e s s t h a n t h o s e who problem"  (p.251).  of audience  see t h e t a s k s o l e l y as a  T h e s e comments r e g a r d i n g t h e  linguistic importance,  f o r d e v e l o p i n g w r i t e r s support the c u r r e n t use  of peer response  g r o u p s i n ESL  I n a l a t e r s t u d y , Zamel  classrooms.  (1987) i n a  comprehensive  s u r v e y of r e s e a r c h i n w r i t i n g pedagogy encouraged t o assume a l e s s c o n t r o l l i n g r o l e  i n the classroom  " a d o p t a p e d a g o g y t h a t r e c o g n i z e s who are...[and]  our  teachers and  students  acknowledges these students' attempts  at  17 c r e a t i n g and n e g o t i a t i n g m e a n i n g " a l l o w i n g s t u d e n t s t o behave l i k e and  (p.709).  She  talked  of  s c h o l a r s , making knowledge  stated:  T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o what o u r s t u d e n t s do, what we • do as t e a c h e r s and how t h e two i n t e r a c t w o u l d i n v o l v e us i n . . . d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t t a k e s i n t o account t h e f u l l c o n t e x t o f human e v e n t " ( p . 7 1 0 ) . Zamel u r g e d of  t e a c h e r s t o t a k e up t h e c h a l l e n g e o f t h i s  kind  inquiry.  Adopting the process approach language  c l a s s r o o m , as a d v o c a t e d  to writing  i n the  b y R a i m e s and  second  Zamel,  leads  i n s t r u c t o r s n a t u r a l l y i n t o the realm of c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g and p e e r g r o u p r e s p o n s e Members o f a g r o u p , generate  ( D i P a r d o and F r e e d m a n ,  1988).  through c o n v e r s a t i o n , h e l p each  i d e a s ; t h e y s u p p o r t and e n c o u r a g e e a c h o t h e r d u r i n g  t h e c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s and p r o v i d e an i n c r e a s e d s e n s e audience  other  f o r each o t h e r  (Urzua, 1987).  Through  of  interaction,  w r i t e r s become a w a r e o f t h e r e a d e r f o r whom t h e t e x t i s composed.  W r i t i n g , once thought  o f as s i l e n t ,  solitary  and  s e c r e t becomes t h e f o c u s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n f o r a c o m m u n i t y o f peers  i n the process classroom  (Obah,  1993).  18 Cooperative  Learning  Cooperative  l e a r n i n g has a l o n g h i s t o r y i n t h e w e s t e r n  w o r l d and. was " d e s c r i b e d i n t h e T a l m u d b y Q u i n t i l i a n i n t h e first  century"  ( O l s e n a n d Kagan, 1992, p.3) .  l e a r n i n g has been e x t e n s i v e l y r e s e a r c h e d b e e n shown t o r e s u l t  Cooperative  s i n c e 1960 a n d h a s  i n academic achievement, s o c i a l and  p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g (pp.4-5) a n d these gains extend native speaking  t o second language l e a r n e r s as w e l l as  students  ( K e s s l e r , 1992)..  Bejarano  (1994)  summarizes c o o p e r a t i v e ' l e a r n i n g from Johnson and Johnson (1987) .  Cooperative l e a r n i n g encourages i n d i v i d u a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n groups t h a t a r e heterogeneous i n a b i l i t y and p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , r e c o g n i z e s t h a t s t u d e n t s n e e d t o be t a u g h t s o c i a l ' s k i l l s , l e t s t h e t e a c h e r observe group i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r v e n e o n l y when n e c e s s a r y , a n d i n c o r p o r a t e s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r groups t o p r o c e s s t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s (p.200). One o f t h e • k e y positive  features of cooperative learning i s .  interdependence,  w h i c h o c c u r s when t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s  o f one i n d i v i d u a l b e n e f i t t h e e n t i r e g r o u p . interdependence  Once p o s i t i v e  i s e s t a b l i s h e d , a l l g r o u p members become  i n t e r e s t e d i n h e l p i n g a l l t h e others.. individual accountability"  (Slavin,  "Group g o a l s a n d  1990, p.53) a r e c r u c i a l  19 to  the  success  students. these  of cooperative  However, some q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s a b o u t w h e t h e r  f e a t u r e s are necessary  Slavin  l e a r n i n g w i t h younger  with college level  (1990) c i t e s a s t u d y by D a n s e r e a u  "provides  individual accountability"  (p.53).  cooperative  and  learning exist,  upon the s u i t a b i l i t y cooperative 1990) . social  (1988) w h i c h  examples of s u c c e s s f u l approaches t o  l e a r n i n g at the c o l l e g e l e v e l without  cooperative  group g o a l s Various  t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s depends  of the approach.  One  model  l e a r n i n g i s the s t r u c t u r a l approach  S t r u c t u r e s are  subject matter.  various functions.  (Kagan, 1990,  Various  p.12).  repeatedly  s t r u c t u r e s have  'Roundrobin' f o r example,  each  i n t u r n shares  something w i t h h i s or her  teammates.  t o Kagan, t h i s  s h a r i n g i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l when  the t e a c h e r wants s t u d e n t s create stories.  to express  When s t u d e n t s  p a r t i c i p a t e e q u a l l y i n the t a s k 'roundrobin', process  (Kagan,  In  According  to  of  " c o n t e n t - f r e e ways o f o r g a n i z i n g  i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom"  with different  or  forms of  B e c a u s e t h e y a r e c o n t e n t - f r e e t h e y c a n be u s e d  student  students.  use  i d e a s and  where s t u d e n t s  or  t h i s s t r u c t u r e , they  (p., 1 4 ) .  The  structure,  i s p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l s u i t e d to the  classroom  opinions,  writing  i n response groups share •  20 t h e i r essays w i t h each other f o r t h e b e n e f i t . o f Elbow's  (1973) model  the s t r u c t u r e  Groups  o f peer response groups i l l u s t r a t e s  'roundrobin'  and Language  all. how  i s employed.  Learning  C o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g approaches, have i n c r e a s e d i n p o p u l a r i t y i n second language classrooms. setting,  s t u d e n t s have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n c r e a s e d  i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e i r peers. a task,  W i t h i n t h e group  Working t o g e t h e r t o complete  language l e a r n e r s n e g o t i a t e meaning:  procedural questions,  asking  s e e k i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f groupmates'  s t a t e m e n t s , c h e c k i n g f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e x p l a i n i n g and so on.  A r e a l need t o communicate  t o expend t h e e f f o r t and t o u n d e r s t a n d .  c o m p e l s members o f t h e g r o u p  r e q u i r e d t o make t h e m s e l v e s u n d e r s t o o d Long and P o r t e r  (1985) s e t o u t  p e d a g o g i c a l and p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c arguments The  f o r group  work.  former are s i m i l a r t o the b e n e f i t s which accrue t o  cooperative learning: practice;  increased o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r language  improved q u a l i t y of student t a l k ;  for individualizing  instruction;  c l i m a t e and i n c r e a s e d m o t i v a t i o n  a positive  opportunities affective  (Long & P o r t e r , 1 9 8 5 ,  pp. 208 - 2 1 2 ) . The p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c a r g u m e n t s  f o r group  21 work a r e o f a t l e a s t e q u a l , i f n o t g r e a t e r , second  language  classroom. will  adapt  proficient  t e a c h e r s c o n t e m p l a t i n g group work i n t h e  I n heterogeneous t h e i r language  g r o u p s , more f l u e n t  a p l a c e o f prominence  speakers  t o be c o m p r e h e n s i b l e t o t h o s e  i n the language,,by  t o t h e t o p i c o f t h e sentence, and by  " t h e more l a n g u a g e  Long and P o r t e r  (1985)  t h a t l e a r n e r s hear and  u n d e r s t a n d a n d t h e more c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t t h e y the f a s t e r and b e t t e r t h e y l e a r n " (1980,  (p. 2 1 4 ) .  receive,  Krashen's  1982) e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a c c e l e r a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g ,  i n Long and P o r t e r  f e a t u r e s o f t h e language  deemed s u f f i c i e n t language  cited  (1985), i s t h e Input H y p o t h e s i s i n w h i c h  he s t a t e s t h a t a l a n g u a g e  comprehensible.  less  a s k i n g more q u e s t i o n s , g i v i n g  employing devices f o r c l a r i f y i n g . contend that  importance t o  l e a r n e r needs t o e n c o u n t e r  new  i n a c o n t e x t w h i c h makes them  Comprehensible f o r language  i n p u t , h o w e v e r , i s no l o n g e r a c q u i s i t i o n and r e c e n t  second  a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s have f o c u s e d on o u t p u t .  Producing comprehensible output, i t i s suggested,  "may  force  t h e l e a r n e r t o move f r o m s e m a n t i c p r o c e s s i n g t o s y n t a c t i c processing" p.213). and  ( S w a i n , 1985, p.249 i n G a s s a n d S e l i n k e r , 1994,  The I n t e r a c t i o n H y p o t h e s i s c o m b i n e s t h e s e  i s s e t o u t i n Gass and S e l i n k e r  (1994)  concepts  as f o l l o w s :  22 , T h e r e a r e t h r e e p a r t s : (1) c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r a c q u i s i t i o n , (2) c o n v e r s a t i o n a l • i n t e r a c t i o n ( n e g o t i a t i o n ) makes t h e i n p u t c o m p r e h e n s i b l e (3) c o m p r e h e n s i b l e o u t p u t a i d s l e a r n e r s i n moving from semantic p r o c e s s i n g t o s y n t a c t i c p r o c e s s i n g (p.219). N e g o t i a t i o n i s a c r u c i a l , s t e p and " r e q u i r e s a t t e n t i v e n e s s and involvement both o f which a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l communication" raises learners' speech,  awareness  (p.219).  Second,  of the d e f i c i e n c i e s of t h e i r  a n d i n o r d e r t o make t h e i r s p e e c h  t h e y must f i r s t  negotiation  d e t e r m i n e what t h e p r o b l e m  comprehensible, i s f o r the  l i s t e n e r a n d t h e n make r e p a i r s t o t h e i r o u t p u t . ability  t o t h i n k about  awareness" ability  language  "this  metalinguistic  i s t h o u g h t t o be " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  t o l e a r n a language"  This  increased  (p.220).  T h e o r i e s o f Language L e a r n i n g Finally,  t h e o r i e s a b o u t how p e o p l e l e a r n l a n g u a g e a n d  g e n e r a t e knowledge s u p p o r t t h e use o f group work i n t h e second language  classroom.  the importance o f s o c i a l  Vygotsky's theories  emphasize  interaction i n learning.  He c l a i m s  t h a t , "good l e a r n i n g i s t h a t w h i c h i s i n a d v a n c e o f development"  ( V y g o t s k y , 1978, p.89 i n D i P a r d o a n d F r e e d m a n ,  23 1988,  p.129).  Learning takes place i n the students'  of p r o x i m a l development"  ( V y g o t s k y , 1986, p . 1 8 7 ) .  r e p r e s e n t s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between  "zone  This  zone  what a s t u d e n t i s . a b l e t o  a c c o m p l i s h i n d e p e n d e n t l y a n d what s/he i s a b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a d u l t s o r more c a p a b l e p e e r s i n a cooperative setting.  V y g o t s k y sees t h e development  of  thought o r t h i n k i n g as a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f speech o r speaking.  Thought  i s f o r him i n t e r n a l i z e d speech and i s  borne from the i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r s i n a s o c i a l  setting.  Knowledge t h e n i s g e n e r a t e d by a community o f p e e r s ; i s c r e a t e d by s o c i a l  interaction  I n s t r u c t o r s a r e becoming  meaning  (Vygotsky, 1986).  increasingly convinced of the  importance o f speech i n t h e c l a s s r o o m and a r e d e v i s i n g  means  of i n t e g r a t i n g c o o p e r a t i v e groups i n t o t h e i r c l a s s r o o m instruction.  I n the second language w r i t i n g classroom, peer  response groups r i c h i n t a l k about t h e a c t i v i t y o f w r i t i n g are the a n t i t h e s i s of the t r a d i t i o n a l secret writer  (Obah,  solitary,  s i l e n t and  1993).  I n summary, p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y g e n e r a l t h e o r i e s of language l e a r n i n g , p r i n c i p l e s o f cooperative learning,  the cognitive process theory of  w r i t i n g and t h e o r i e s o f second language a c q u i s i t i o n .  Iti s  24 n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s h a v e become t h e f o c u s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e s t u d y , a n d i t i s t o t h i s r e s e a r c h we now  turn.  P e e r R e s p o n s e i n t h e ESL W r i t i n g  Classroom  I n t h e p a s t d e c a d e , p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s h a v e become i n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l a r i n ESL w r i t i n g c l a s s r o o m s s i n c e many t e a c h e r s a r e s h i f t i n g t h e emphasis o f t h e i r  instruction  the product of w r i t i n g t o the process of w r i t i n g .  from  In  addition,  t h e o r i e s o f language a c q u i s i t i o n support t h e use  of groups  i n second language classrooms.  Research i n t o  peer  r e s p o n s e g r o u p s h a s become i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t a n d i s designed t o further understanding of the complexity of these groups  s o t h a t s t u d e n t s m i g h t b e n e f i t a s much a s p o s s i b l e .  R e s e a r c h i s f o c u s e d o n a number o f a s p e c t s o f p e e r response:  peer t a l k o r the i n t e r a c t i o n that takes p l a c e  during the a c t i v i t y ;  the r e v i s i o n of essays that i s the  r e s u l t of peer i n t e r a c t i o n ; preferences f o r types of f e e d b a c k ; and f i n a l l y , peer response  sessions.  the p e r c e p t i o n s of students toward  25 Peer Interaction-.  I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o what  occurs d u r i n g peer response Mendonca a n d J o h n s o n of  sessions i s just beginning.  (1994) e x p l o r e d t y p e s a n d f r e q u e n c i e s  peer n e g o t i a t i o n d u r i n g response  advanced  e s s a y and gave o r a l  f e e d b a c k g u i d e d by q u e s t i o n s .  In  s t u d e n t s w e r e t o l d t o f o c u s on any p o i n t s i n t h e  researchers,  to understand.  The  i n c o n s i d e r i n g the t r a n s c r i p t s of the  peer  sessions,  c a t e g o r i z e d f i v e types of n e g o t i a t i o n  c a l c u l a t e d t h e f r e q u e n c y o f e a c h type.d e t e r m i n e d what p e r c e n t a g e  Mendonca a n d J o h n s o n  Then, t h e  and  authors  of each type of n e g o t i a t i o n  w r i t e r - g e n e r a t e d and what p e r c e n t a g e was  to  Twelve  Students read t h e i r peer's .  t e x t t h a t were u n c l e a r o r d i f f i c u l t  response  sessions.  n o n n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h worked i n dyads t o  r e v i e w each o t h e r ' s essays.  addition,  actually  was  reader-generated.  (1994) c o n c l u d e d t h a t p e e r s w e r e a b l e  f o c u s o n l o c a l a n d g l o b a l d i s c o u r s e i s s u e s ; p e e r s became  "aware o f how  t h e i r w r i t i n g a f f e c t e d r e a d e r s . . . and c o u l d  share knowledge about w r i t t e n t e x t s " researchers also concluded that  (p. 7 5 6 ) .  The  "reviewers tended  to  initiate  a l l types of n e g o t i a t i o n s except e x p l a n a t i o n s of  content"  (p. 7 5 6 ) .  26 Villamil  a n d De G u e r r e r o  i n t e r a c t i o n s d u r i n g response  (1996) a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d sessions.  homogeneous i n t e r m s o f l a n g u a g e language,  Fifty-four  peer  students,  proficiency, native  l e n g t h o f time i n an E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g c o u n t r y and  p r e v i o u s ESL c o u r s e s were t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . Students worked i n p a i r s ,  read t h e i r compositions  and, t h e n , u s i n g a R e v i s i o n S h e e t revise t h e i r compositions.  to reveal  helped t h e i r peers t o  By d i s c o v e r i n g a n d c l a s s i f y i n g  behaviour that aided revision, attempted  "a s e n s e  the authors of t h i s  To t h i s e n d , V i l l a m i l  identified revision, facilitate  seven  study  o f t h e i n t r i c a c y and t o t a l i t y  of t h e whole r e v i s i o n p r o c e s s as [they] o b s e r v e d 69).  aloud  a n d De G u e r r e r o  social-cognitive activities  it"  (p.  (1996) related to  f i v e m e d i a t i n g s t r a t e g i e s s t u d e n t s employed t o t h e r e v i s i o n p r o c e s s and f o u r s i g n i f i c a n t  of s o c i a l behaviour evident d u r i n g peer T h i s s t u d y was a more c o m p r e h e n s i v e  aspects  interaction. l o o k a t "what  a c t u a l l y o c c u r s when two L2 l e a r n e r s e n g a g e i n a j o i n t r e v i s i o n a n d how t h e y manage t o a s s i s t While  each o t h e r "  (p.' 54) .  t h e s e f i n d i n g s were o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t ,  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  i nVillamil  were v e r y c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d .  a n d De G u e r r e r o ' s  (1996)  study  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o  27 determine  i f r e s u l t s c o u l d be r e p l i c a t e d w i t h a g r o u p o f  s t u d e n t s more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e ESL  p o p u l a t i o n w i t h whom  most t e a c h e r s w o r k .  i n t e r e s t e d t o see i f  Villamil  I n my  and De G u e r r e r o ' s  s t u d y , I was  (1996) r e s u l t s c o u l d be  d u p l i c a t e d w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s who class.  I w o n d e r e d i f my  e n r o l l e d i n my  r e s u l t s m i g h t be more l i m i t e d  seemed t o be t h e c a s e i n Mendonca a n d J o h n s o n ' s study.  I t appeared  (1994) w e r e s i m i l a r t o t h e  s u b - s t r a t e g i e s found by V i l l a m i l  to  T h i s was generated  and  reader-generated types of  The  responses.  (1994)  writer-  negotiations.  S t a n l e y ' s c o d e , h o w e v e r , more c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e d  Guerrero  students  a code  and w r i t e r s '  s i m i l a r t o Mendonca and J o h n s o n ' s  scaffolding  (1996).  student  T r a n s c r i p t s w e r e a n a l y z e d and  f o r e v a l u a t o r s ' responses  by  scaffolding  and De G u e r r e r o  be b e t t e r p e e r e v a l u a t o r s w o u l d i m p r o v e  developed  (1994)  (1992) i n v e s t i g a t e d w h e t h e r c o a c h i n g  interactions.  as  as i f t h e t y p e s o f n e g o t i a t i o n n o t e d  Mendonca and J o h n s o n  Stanley  composition  the  s u b s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by V i l l a m i l  and  De  (1996). participants  i n S t a n l e y ' s (1992) s t u d y w e r e  e n r o l l e d i n a f r e s h m a n c o m p o s i t i o n c o u r s e and h a d s c o r e s o f 547  i n one  section,  549  i n a second  TOEFL  section.  Age  28 of the students residency  was s i m i l a r a s was t h e mean l e n g t h o f  i n the United  States.  v a r i e t y of language backgrounds. extensive  coaching  before  sessions; the other  One s e c t i o n was  participating  i n peer  s e c t i o n was more t y p i c a l l y  using a demonstration  of a peer-evaluation  o f r e s p o n s e s were a n a l y z e d Stanley's  S t u d e n t s were f r o m a given  response prepared  session.  over s i x audiotaped  Types  sessions.  (1992) f i n d i n g s p o i n t t o c o n s i d e r a b l y more  c o n v e r s a t i o n when s t u d e n t s  receive coaching  and  " s u b s t a n t i a l l y more s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s t o w r i t i n g "  Impact on R e v i s i o n . above, S t a n l e y  I n t h e same s t u d y  (p. 2 2 6 ) .  referred to  (1992) e x a m i n e d d r a f t s a n d t h e t r a n s c r i b e d  peer e v a l u a t i o n sessions which immediately evidence of response t o the evaluator's coached and uncoached s e c t i o n s .  p r e c e d e d them f o r  comment i n b o t h  R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d more  r e v i s i o n s f o l l o w e d from peer e v a l u a t i o n s i n t h e coached group.  P o i n t i n g r e m a r k s a p p e a r e d t o r e s u l t more o f t e n i n  r e v i s i o n s than other  types  o f remarks.  Stanley  t h a t p e e r - e v a l u a t i o n g r o u p s were w o r t h t h e e f f o r t coached students.  concluded with  "Among t h e u n c o a c h e d g r o u p s , t h e l e v e l o f  r e v i s i o n i h r e s p o n s e t o e v a l u a t o r s ' comments was q u i t e a b i t  29 lower"  (p. 22 9 ) .  Without  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of peer address  this  c o a c h i n g one m i g h t q u e s t i o n t h e  response.  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h needs t o  issue.  Hedgcock and L e f k o w i t z  (1992) c o n d u c t e d  a study i n the  f o r e i g n language  (FL) c o n t e x t .  w r i t t e n feedback  from t h e i n s t r u c t o r s o n l y , f i r s t  and  t h e n o n grammar.  using photocopies  a second  c a r r i e d out peer  response  of t h e i r peers' w r i t t e n text.  "In  r e v i e w s e s s i o n s t u d e n t s . . . f o c u s e d on f o r m a l  features of text, 261).  on c o n t e n t  I n the experimental group, groups of  three with a written protocol, orally,  A c o n t r o l group r e c e i v e d  s u c h a s grammar a n d l e x i c a l  c h o i c e " (p.  The r e s e a r c h e r s n o t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e  s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p e e r  feedback  as t h o s e who r e c e i v e d t e a c h e r f e e d b a c k . feedback  performed  Secondly,  as w e l l teacher  r e s u l t e d i n i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e a r e a o f grammar  w h i l e t h e p e e r g r o u p members made r e v i s i o n s t o c o n t e n t , o r g a n i z a t i o n and v o c a b u l a r y . procedure  i n t h i s study, but, the data suggest  t e c h n i q u e . . . does n o t r e s u l t  results.  review  d i d n o t p r o d u c e a s t o u n d i n g l y b e t t e r L2  compositions  writing"  "The o r a l / a u r a l  (p. 2 6 4 ) .  i n grammatically  Fathman and W h a l l e y  Hedgcock and L e f k o w i t z  that the  inferior  (1990) h a d s i m i l a r  (1992) c o n c l u d e d  that  • .  30  e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e FL c l a s s r o o m r e v i s i n g behaviour.  resulted i n satisfactory  T h i s s t u d y e n c o u r a g e d me t o u s e o r a l  f e e d b a c k w i t h t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s i n my s t u d y .  I  b e l i e v e d t h a t u s i n g peer response s e s s i o n s would not cause the  students'  w r i t i n g t o s u f f e r i n terms o f accuracy.  teacher/researcher  i t was my r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o e n s u r e  my r e s e a r c h d i d n o t d i s a d v a n t a g e I was p l e a s e d  As a  my s t u d e n t s .  that  Consequently,  t o r e a d o f Hedgcock and L e f k o w i t z  (1992)  findings Mendonca.and J o h n s o n  (1994) d e s c r i b e d t h r e e p a t t e r n s o f  r e v i s i o n r e v e a l e d when s t u d e n t s  first  and second d r a f t s were  compared w i t h t a p e s c r i p t s o f peer response s e s s i o n s . Students  u s e d p e e r comments t o r e v i s e ' ; s t u d e n t s  change t h e i r e s s a y s students  even though s u g g e s t i o n s  changed t h e i r essays  comments.  The r e s e a r c h e r s  instances of revisions, comments.  d i d not  h a d b e e n made;  f o r reasons other than  peer  found t h a t i n 53% o f t h e  students  incorporated their  peers'  .These r e s u l t s n e e d t o be r e p l i c a t e d i n f u r t h e r  studies. Connor and Asenavage d i f f e r e n t way. . U s i n g revisions,  (1994) a p p r o a c h e d r e v i s i o n i n a  F a i g l e y and W i t t e ' s  (1981) t a x o n o m y o f  the researchers determined whether  student  31 r e v i s i o n s were s u r f a c e changes o r t e x t - b a s e d study  changes.  was c o n d u c t e d w i t h two p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s o f f o u r  students  e a c h f r o m a n ESL f r e s h m a n w r i t i n g c l a s s .  The  source  self/others)  o f e a c h r e v i s i o n was n o t e d  (group,  a n d r e v i s i o n s were c a t e g o r i z e d .  somewhat s u r p r i s i n g .  The a u t h o r s  teacher,  Results  reported that  r e s u l t of peers'  comments.  The t y p e  s e s s i o n determined t h e type  were  students  made n u m e r o u s r e v i s i o n s b u t r e l a t i v e l y f e w o f t h o s e  the  The  were t h e  o f comments made  o f r e v i s i o n s made.  during  Overall  "5% o f t h e r e v i s i o n r e s u l t e d f r o m p e e r comments, 3 5 % c o u l d be  d e s c r i b e d as r e s u l t i n g  from teacher  comments a n d 6 0 % . . . a s  a r e s u l t o f s e l f / o t h e r s " (p. 2 6 7 ) . T h e s e r e s u l t s seem t o correspond groups.  t o those  r e p o r t e d by S t a n l e y w i t h  A l s o mentioned by t h e r e s e a r c h e r s  " r e v i s i o n s based on t e a c h e r level: and  formal  uncoached  was t h e f a c t t h e  comments w e r e p r i m a r i l y s u r f a c e  changes such as s p e l l i n g ,  tense,  punctuation  m e a n i n g - p r e s e r v i n g c h a n g e s s u c h a s a d d i t i o n s arid  deletions"  (Faigley & Witte,  1 9 8 1 , p. 4 0 3 ) .  Connor and  Asenevage  (1994) s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e f i n d i n g s o f H e d g c o c k a n d  Lefkowitz  (1992) who r e p o r t e d t h a t  " t h e r e v i s i o n s made b y  the c o n t r o l group which r e c e i v e d o n l y teacher positive  i n t h e a r e a o f grammar"  (p. 2 6 3 ) .  f e e d b a c k were  32 Finally,  N e l s o n and Murphy  (1993) e x a m i n e d why  students  w e r e n o t c o n s i s t e n t i n u s i n g p e e r comments t o r e v i s e essays.  F o u r s t u d e n t s were t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s  from a d i f f e r e n t  country.  study,  In a n a l y z i n g the t r a n s c r i p t s  t h e d r a f t s t h e r e s e a r c h e r s n o t e d two m a j o r p a t t e r n s b e h a v i o u r on t h e p a r t o f t h e s t u d e n t s w h i c h t h e y a) i n t e r a c t i v e / n o n i n t e r a c t i v e and b) The  their each of  of  labelled:  cooperative/defensive.  r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y by N e l s o n and Murphy  (1993)  point  t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o o p e r a t i o n and n e g o t i a t i o n i n b r i n g i n g about r e v i s i o n t o e s s a y s as a r e s u l t o f p e e r  response  sessions.  P r e f e r e n c e s f o r Types o f Feedback.  A third  focus of  s t u d i e s i n t o peer response sessions i s the p r e f e r e n c e s f o r types of feedback.  Using a questionnaire,  Saito  (1994)  i n q u i r e d of students i n three c l a s s e s t h e i r opinions of the u s e f u l n e s s of d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of feedback.  Student  a t t i t u d e s t o e a c h k i n d o f f e e d b a c k were c a t e g o r i z e d . as positive,  neutral or negative.  Results indicated  that  students tended t o favour teacher feedback over peer feedback or s e l f c o r r e c t i o n " one  class,  (p. 6 0 ) .  Responses  (80%) i n  however, i n d i c a t e d a c c e p t a n c e o f p e e r r e s p o n s e  as  1 useful.  T h i s c l a s s was composed o f a d v a n c e d  enrolled  i n a u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t course.  attitudes  33  students  "These s t u d e n t s '  and m o t i v a t i o n s p r o b a b l y d i f f e r e d from t h e o t h e r  two c l a s s e s b e c a u s e  t h e y were i n a c r e d i t c o u r s e and  required t o take the c l a s s "  (p. 4 9 ) . A c c e p t a n c e o f p e e r  f e e d b a c k m i g h t d e p e n d , i t seems, o n l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y a n d m o t i v a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s . Zhang's  (1995)  study i n t o t h e a f f e c t i v e advantage o f  p e e r f e e d b a c k w i t h s e c o n d l a n g u a g e c l a s s e s was a l s o d e s i g n e d to determine i fstudents p r e f e r r e d teacher, peer, o r s e l f feedback.  When q u e s t i o n e d d i r e c t l y "93.8% o f t h e 81  participants  chose t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h e r feedback  non-teacher feedback"  (p. 2 1 6 ) . Connor and Asenavage  d i d not d i r e c t l y question students regarding preferences. combined  Teacher feedback  w i t h peer feedback  i n b o t h g r o u p s was s m a l l ,  (1994)  their  ( a f t e r a second d r a f t )  (after a f i r s t  as p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d i n d i c a t e d  (p. 2 6 6 ) . I n a d d i t i o n ,  over  draft).  was  Results  t h e " e f f e c t o f p e e r comments  o n l y about  5% o f t o t a l  revisions"  " r e v i s i o n s made a s a r e s u l t o f  t e a c h e r comments w e r e p r i m a r i l y s u r f a c e c h a n g e s "  (p.  265).  A l t h o u g h I d i d n o t p l a n t o e x p l i c i t l y a s k my s t u d e n t s t o i n d i c a t e a p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r type of feedback,  34 t h e s e s t u d i e s a l e r t e d me  t o a concern t h a t I would need t o  watch f o r .  .  Student  Perceptions.  The  .  final  focus of peer  r e s e a r c h i s on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s , and reasons that  f o r those perceptions.  Manglesdorf  response  their  (1992)  found  " f o r most o f t h e s t u d e n t s . . . i n t h e s t u d y , p e e r  reviews  were p e r c e i v e d as a b e n e f i c i a l t e c h n i q u e t h a t h e l p e d students r e v i s e t h e i r papers" c o n t e n t , o r g a n i z a t i o n and  (p. 2 7 8 ) .  Students p i n p o i n t e d  s t y l e a s a r e a s where p e e r  s e s s i o n s h e l p e d them i m p r o v e .  the  " N e g a t i v e v i e w s on  response  peer  r e v i e w s f o c u s on. l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s t u d e n t r e v i e w e r a n d task i t s e l f "  (p. 2 7 7 ) .  One  fact stood out.  the  In  M a n g l e s d o r f ' s study "almost a l l of the s t u d e n t s w i t h  totally  n e g a t i v e v i e w s came f r o m c u l t u r e s t h a t s t r e s s t e a c h e r centered classrooms" interest  t o me  background my  and  (p. 2 8 0 ) .  s i n c e my  students are mostly of A s i a n  I wondered i f the r e s u l t s would h o l d t r u e f o r  c l a s s e s and p e e r r e s p o n s e Obah  These r e s u l t s were o f  sessions.  (1993) i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e p e r c e p t i o n s h e r  had o f p e e r r e s p o n s e  students  f o u n d them t o be q u i t e p o s i t i v e  a p p r e c i a t i v e of the s o c i a l contact i n groups,  the  and  35 o p p o r t u n i t y t o s p e a k E n g l i s h and to  l e a r n from o t h e r people's  have c o n c e r n s asked  share  mistakes.  i d e a s , and  the  chance  These s t u d e n t s d i d  mainly r e g a r d i n g f e e l i n g s of inadequacy  to c r i t i q u e another's  paper.  There were a l s o  when concerns  a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t some s t u d e n t s w e r e a p a t h e t i c and hard working "visible  t h a n o t h e r members o f t h e g r o u p .  a a  students"  13).  My  s t u d y was  I w o n d e r e d i f my  p r o m p t e d by a number o f c o n c e r n s .  1989). views  Manglesdorf,  1992;  Mittan,  Would t h e y , b e c a u s e t h e y were A s i a n , have n e g a t i v e of peer  t o conduct  response my  sessions?  These q u e s t i o n s prompted  s t u d y on t h e t o p i c o f p e e r  seemed n e c e s s a r y t o c o n d u c t  my  own  response.  s t u d y i n my  s i n c e r e s u l t s r e g a r d i n g r e v i s i o n and p e e r  Guerrero's  (1996) s t u d y ,  v e r y c a r e f u l l y chosen.  own  It  context  interaction  a p p e a r e d t o d e p e n d on t h e d e s i g n o f t h e s t u d y . and De  First,  s t u d e n t s w o u l d b e n e f i t as s t u d e n t s seem t o  h a v e i n many s t u d i e s (Obah, 1993;  me  Obah n o t e d  i n c r e a s e i n c o n f i d e n c e , more f l u e n t w r i t i n g a n d  g r o w t h i n m u t u a l r e s p e c t b e t w e e n t e a c h e r and (p.  less  in particular,  In  Villamil  s t u d e n t s were  W o u l d r e s u l t s be t h e same w i t h a  c l a s s composed o f s t u d e n t s who  were h e t e r o g e n e o u s i n  b a c k g r o u n d , l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y and e d u c a t i o n ?  The  36 literature  i n v e s t i g a t i n g peer response sessions  c o m p l e x i t y p r o m p t e d me t o e x p l o r e classroom through a c t i o n  Journal  and t h e i r  p e e r r e s p o n s e i n my  research.  Writing  Evaluation  o f peer response a c t i v i t i e s has t a k e n t h e  form o f b o t h i n t e r v i e w and r e f l e c t i v e  journal writing.  both types,  asked students t o  when t e a c h e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s  In  r e f l e c t upon t h e p e e r r e v i e w p r o c e s s , t h e y were a s k i n g t h e s t u d e n t s t o engage i n what G e r e debriefing. the  "By d i s c u s s i n g  (1987) r e f e r s t o a s  the issues  t h a t have a r i s e n i n  g r o u p , e x p l a i n i n g what t h e y h a v e l e a r n e d ,  and e x p l o r i n g  unresolved issues, p a r t i c i p a n t s l e a r n t o monitor t h e i r t h i n k i n g and e v a l u a t e debriefing.or  evaluation  journal entry, to integrate written  t h e i r own p r o g r e s s "  (p.Ill).  This  i n my s t u d y t o o k t h e f o r m o f a  a metacognitive instrument t o a s s i s t  a l l that  own  students  t h e y had e x p e r i e n c e d , t h i s time i n  form.  Many s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i n s t r u c t o r s a r e h a v i n g keep j o u r n a l s  as p a r t  of course requirements.  are v a r i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o as ' l e a r n i n g l o g s ' 'diaries'  students  The  journals  ( M y e r s , 1990)  (McDonough, 1994) ' a c a d e m i c j o u r n a l s '  (Carswell,  37 1988),  'dialogue j o u r n a l s ' ( C a r r o l l ,  Moulton, 1995,).  1994; H o l m e s a n d  The name t h e i n s t r u c t o r u s e s t o i d e n t i f y  t h e t y p e o f j o u r n a l r e q u i r e d depends upon t h e p u r p o s e f o r which t h e assignment o f j o u r n a l w r i t i n g logs,  i s given.  Learning  f o r example, a r e g e n e r a l l y f o r t h e purpose o f  e x p l o r i n g responses t o classroom  activities,  reflecting  the l e a r n i n g t h a t took p l a c e and n o t i n g any c o n f u s i o n resulted.  Students  suggestions see  regarding teachers'  t h e i r teachers  t h e power"  r e f l e c t i n g upon t h e c l a s s r o o m  as w i l l i n g  (Myers,  classroom  upon  that  may make  p r a c t i c e s i f they  " t o c o n s i d e r ways o f s h a r i n g  1990, p . 7 7 ) .  I n my v i e w , d i a r i e s  imply a  more p e r s o n a l , e x p r e s s i v e a p p r o a c h t o the- r e f l e c t i o n contained  therein.  I n McDonough's s t u d y o f f o u r  teachers'  "personal  - p r o f e s s i o n a l " (p.57) d i a r y e n t r i e s ,  there i s evidence  of considerable r e f l e c t i o n  i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e t e a c h e r s '  about  f e e l i n g s about  those  i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e i r presence i n t h e classroom. j o u r n a l s seem t o p r e s u p p o s e t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s ' will  Academic submissions  be o f a more t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n w h i l e t h e d i a l o g u e  journal  suggests  t h e development o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n between  i n s t r u c t o r and student is  experienced  over  the length of the course.  i n d e e d what r e s u l t e d i n Newman's  This  (1998) e x p e r i e n c e . ' She  38 began p a r t i c i p a t i n g  i n t h e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g h e r s e l f when s h e  r e a l i z e d h e r s t u d e n t s ' j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was " g u a r d e d a n d cautious"  (p.134).  She b e g a n a d i a l o g u e w i t h h e r s t u d e n t s  t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d an atmosphere w i t h i n w h i c h share  their  ideas without  students  could  concern.  J o u r n a l s i n w r i t i n g c l a s s e s h a v e become p o p u l a r f o r a number o f r e a s o n s .  First,  increasingly-  t h e y p r o v i d e an  o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e x t e n s i v e w r i t i n g and t h e e n s u i n g b e n e f i t s of  "improved  (Casanave,  1994; p . 1 8 5 ) .  assignments limited,  f a c i l i t y w i t h s y n t a x and v o c a b u l a r y " B e c a u s e t h e number o f t r a d i t i o n a l  s t u d e n t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o submit  i n a semester i s  journal writing provides additional  practice.  writing  T o p i c s a r e g e n e r a l l y open, a l t h o u g h o f t e n  s t u d e n t s a r e encouraged t o w r i t e about i s s u e s and r e a d i n g s discussed i n the class.  Teachers  f o c u s on t h e meaning o f  the t e x t and u s u a l l y g i v e o n l y minimal, feedback problems.  Research  h a s shown t h a t t h e w r i t i n g o f many .  s t u d e n t s does improve even i f o n l y minimal i s given t o students  o n grammar  feedback  (Robb, S h o r t r e a d .and R o s s ,  W r i t i n g improves through  journal writing at least  on  1986). to the  e x t e n t t h a t i t becomes e a s i e r a n d f a s t e r t o w r i t e o v e r (Casanave,  1994).  form  time  39 In a d d i t i o n t o extending w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e , provide  journals  a means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n s t u d e n t s a n d  teacher,  a p r i v a t e forum f o r d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s  classroom events, a c t i v i t i e s ,  surrounding  i n t e r a c t i o n s which the  students p r e f e r not t o bring t o the i n s t r u c t o r ' s a t t e n t i o n during has  c l a s s time.  Rapport i s e s t a b l i s h e d and t h e t e a c h e r  the opportunity  t o evaluate  changes i f a p p r o p r i a t e .  c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e s a n d make  I n some c a s e s , i n d i v i d u a l  i n s t r u c t i o n may r e s u l t f r o m a j o u r n a l e n t r y student with a  p a r t i c u l a r problem  In j o u r n a l s assigned  (Carswell,  learning that  1988).  by i n s t r u c t o r s f o r t h e purpose o f  t h i n k i n g about t h e c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s , the  to assist a  i s taking place,  evidence of r e f l e c t i v e thinking.  the readings  teachers  and  hope f o r  S u r b e c k e t a l , (1991)  examined j o u r n a l e n t r i e s t o determine t h e k i n d o f t h i n k i n g students did.  They e s t a b l i s h e d t h r e e  divided i n t o subcategories The  'Reaction'  negative  broad categories,  each  to c l a r i f y the journal e n t r i e s .  category included  a f f e c t i v e responses of both  and p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s , d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e  activities  and p e r s o n a l  involvement i n c l a s s .  concerns that a f f e c t e d the student's The c a t e g o r y o f ' E l a b o r a t i o n '  used t o i d e n t i f y statements of explanation  and t h a t  was  40 E l a b o r a t i o n was c l a s s i f i e d a s c o n c r e t e , c o m p a r a t i v e generalized.  The t h i r d c a t e g o r y was  'Contemplation'. contemplative  designated  A j o u r n a l e n t r y was n o t r a t e d  unless i t i n c l u d e d statements  p r e v i o u s two c a t e g o r i e s a n d " t h i n k i n g a b o u t professions or social/ethical and  or  Moyer, 1991, p.27).  problems"  from t h e personal  (Surbeck,  The r e s e a r c h e r s f o u n d  Park  from  Han  their  a n a l y s i s t h a t , o n l y a f e w e n t r i e s c o u l d be l a b e l e d contemplative evidence  a l t h o u g h many j o u r n a l e n t r i e s  t h a t t h e sequence l e a d i n g t o c o n t e m p l a t i o n  p a r t i a l l y developed. this  contained  To h e l p s t u d e n t s w r i t e r e f l e c t i v e l y ,  s e q u e n c e s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d , t h e a u t h o r s Carswell  course  study,  (1988) i n w o r k i n g  e x p l a n a t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n "  C a r s w e l l noted  concluded.  ina  graduate  of r e f l e c t i v e  (p.105).  that the journals provided  t h a t s t u d e n t s were b e g i n n i n g source  with teachers  a l s o hoped " t o encourage t h e p r o c e s s  description,  was  In this evidence  t o " i n v e s t i g a t e t h e nature and  o f t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i o n s a l t h o u g h much o f t h e  writing  is still  a t t h e d e s c r i p t i v e and e x p l a n a t o r y  level"  (p.Ill) • Journal writing already noted  i s not without problems. F i r s t , as  i n t h e above d i s c u s s i o n ,  encouraging  41 r e f l e c t i o n i n w r i t i n g i s not easy.  Students  e x t e n d i n g t h e i r t h i n k i n g i n t h i s way  and  are not used  consequently  need  t o be g i v e n m o d e l s t o e x a m i n e and p e r h a p s q u e s t i o n s t o their writing.  A second  problem  the teacher i s the f i n a l situation,  a u t h o r i t y i n the  classroom i n a vulnerable  p o s i t i o n i f they w r i t e h o n e s t l y of t h e i r f e e l i n g s  (Jarvis,  1992) .  Students  or the j o u r n a l s w i l l little  insight"  suggests  who  f o r those  feelings  must be a b l e t o t r u s t t h e  She  (Newman, 1988,  p.134).  Jarvis  (1992)  " p l e a s i n g the  recommends a s k i n g s t u d e n t s why Finally,  some s t u d e n t s may  teacher"  t h e y h a v e made  dislike  journal o f Dang  and b e n e f i t e d f r o m f o r m a l w r i t i n g . . . [ b u t ]  r e s i s t e d and d i s l i k e d t h e i n f o r m a l w r i t i n g o f t h e (p.223).  One  final  teachers are u s i n g j o u r n a l s , practice.  offer  Holmes and M o u l t o n ( 1 9 9 5 ) document t h e c a s e  "enjoyed  journals"  teacher,  " l a c k i n g i n s p o n t a n e i t y and  them i n o r d e r t o s i m p l y be  s u c h comments. writing.  be  the reasons  about  some s t u d e n t s make e v a l u a t i v e comments w i t h o u t  justifying (p.137).  and  guide  w i t h j o u r n a l s i s t h a t when  students are p l a c i n g themselves  classroom a c t i v i t i e s ,  to  Often,  dialogue  n o t e , b e c a u s e s o many  s t u d e n t s may  students are asked  be  resisting  the  t o s i m u l t a n e o u s l y keep  42 w r i t i n g journals, reading  j o u r n a l s and even  talking  journals. The p o p u l a r i t y ,of j o u r n a l s i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . do g i v e  i n s t r u c t o r s i n s i g h t i n t o student  classroom  i n s t r u c t i o n and t h i s  perspectives  i s "foundational  k n o w l e d g e we n e e d t o do g o o d work a s t e a c h e r s " 1995, p. 94)..  Journals on  first-order (Brookfield,  W i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n we r e c e i v e f r o m o u r  students'  j o u r n a l e n t r i e s , we c a n m o n i t o r o u r p r a c t i c e a n d  formulate  plans  f o r a c t i o n t h a t may  improve t h a t p r a c t i c e .  43  CHAPTER  THREE  MethodologyChapter study. which  Three d e s c r i b e s t h e conduct  I t provides information regarding the context  i n t h e study.  training, peer  within  the r e s e a r c h took p l a c e , d e s c r i b e s the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n  the study and p r e s e n t s t h e peer use  of the research  response  model c h o s e n f o r  S p e c i f i c s of the study i n c l u d i n g  t h e t e a c h e r ' s r o l e and t h e f i r s t  response  sessions are presented  language  and subsequent  l a t e r i n the chapter.  A d i s c u s s i o n of the a n a l y s i s of the data concludes the chapter.  The  Context T h i s s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n  i n a small university college  i n t h e i n t e r i o r o f B r i t i s h Columbia. this  institution,  active  F o r a number o f y e a r s  l i k e many o t h e r s i n t h e p r o v i n c e , h a s b e e n  i n international education.  Students  have been  r e c r u i t e d from v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s , mainly Korea, Taiwan.  Japan and  S i n c e 1985, t h e number o f s t u d e n t s i n t h e E n g l i s h  as a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e p r o g r a m h a s s t e a d i l y g r o w n  until  c u r r e n t l y t h e r e a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 h u n d r e d s t u d e n t s a n d  44 20 full to  t i m e ESL i n s t r u c t o r s .  Some s t u d e n t s a r e i n C a n a d a  improve t h e i r E n g l i s h and t o e x p e r i e n c e another  and w i l l  r e t u r n home a f t e r one o r two s e m e s t e r s .  p r e p a r i n g f o r academic work i n c e r t i f i c a t e , degree programs i n N o r t h  culture ' Others a r e  diploma o r  America.  Some o f t h e s t u d e n t s h a v e f i n i s h e d d e g r e e p r o g r a m s i n t h e i r own c o u n t r i e s , w h i l e many o f t h e s t u d e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those  from Japan,  have c o m p l e t e d  two y e a r s o f  j u n i o r c o l l e g e i n t h e i r home c o u n t r i e s .  M o s t h a v e s t u d i e d E n g l i s h f o r a number o f y e a r s i n p r o g r a m s w i t h a n e m p h a s i s o n grammar.  An i n c r e a s i n g  trend  i s becoming e v i d e n t , however, f o r t h e s t u d e n t s t o have h a d some " c o n v e r s a t i o n " c l a s s e s a t a p r i v a t e s c h o o l i n C a n a d a o r i n t h e i r native country.  Placement o f Students.  Students  at the university  c o l l e g e a r e e n r o l l e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t i n g c l a s s e s based on t h e i r s c o r e s o n a p l a c e m e n t exam d e v e l o p e d  in-house.  This  p l a c e m e n t exam c o n s i s t s o f m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s o n v o c a b u l a r y , grammar a n d r e a d i n g ; a c o m p o s i t i o n ; a n d a n o r a l interview..  D u r i n g t h e exam, t h e s t u d e n t s h a v e  forty-five  45 m i n u t e s i n w h i c h t o complete a w r i t i n g sample based on t h e prompt g i v e n .  The c o m p o s i t i o n  i s m a r k e d b y two  experienced  t e a c h e r s , and i f t h e y a r e n o t i n agreement about p l a c e m e n t , a third  i n s t r u c t o r evaluates the w r i t i n g  The  CESL P r o g r a m .  sample.  The C o l l e g e E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d  Language  (CESL) p r o g r a m a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e h a s f i v e  levels.  The f i r s t  "lower  i n t e r m e d i a t e " s t u d e n t s , and t h e s e  correspond to  two l e v e l s a r e f o r " h i g h b e g i n n e r "  Students  placed i n Level 3 are  " i n t e r m e d i a t e " s t u d e n t s w i t h a TOEFL  o f 455-495. "lower  roughly  t o a 360 - 395 TOEFL s c o r e f o r L e v e l 1 a n d a 400  450 s c o r e f o r L e v e l 2.  considered  levels  and  Level 4 i s considered  equivalency  "upper i n t e r m e d i a t e " o r  a d v a n c e d " w i t h a TOEFL e q u i v a l e n c y o f 5 0 0 - 5 4 0 .  Level  5 " a d v a n c e d " h a s a TOEFL e q u i v a l e n c y o f 550 t o 5 7 5 , a n d c o n s i s t s o f two c o u r s e s these  - a r e a d i n g and a w r i t i n g  combined form t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r f i r s t  u n i v e r s i t y composition participants  and l i t e r a t u r e c o u r s e s .  i n t h i s s t u d y were "upper  course;  year The  intermediate/lower  advanced" s t u d e n t s of E n g l i s h as a second  language.  46 The  P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the Research  The  twelve  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e s t u d y were s t u d e n t s i n  my L e v e l 4 w r i t i n g c l a s s i n t h e w i n t e r April)  o f 1997 s e m e s t e r .  (January  through  Students had been p l a c e d  i n Level  4 w r i t i n g on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r r e s u l t s on t h e w r i t i n g s e c t i o n of the placement t e s t , w r i t i n g course  of completion  of the Level 3  a n d t h e L e v e l 3 grammar c o u r s e  marks-of 65% o r b e t t e r .  both  W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of. one  with student,  who was t a k i n g t h e L e v e l 3 grammar c l a s s c o n c u r r e n t l y the L e v e l 4 w r i t i n g , appropriate and  a l l the students  prerequisites.  i n my c l a s s h a d t h e  The p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e two m a l e s  t e n females - a l l o r i g i n a l l y  from c o u n t r i e s i n A s i a .  T h e i r backgrounds, i n t e r e s t s and s t r e n g t h s considerably.  A brief  the  study  of the group e v i d e n t .  makes .  A l l names i n  are f i c t i t i o u s .  B i l l was f r o m Hong Kong. studying  varied  sketch of each o f . t h e students  the heterogeneous nature  with  He h a d s p e n t f i v e  i n Canadian high schools  Vancouver.  Initially,  Bill's  years  i n b o t h Kamioops and  f a m i l y had planned t o emigrate  f r o m Hong Kong, b u t B i l l ' s f a t h e r d e v e l o p e d c a n c e r f a m i l y c o u l d n o t move t o Canada.  In class,  Bill  and t h e  was a n  47 independent, listening  cheerful  skills  s t u d e n t whose s p e e c h was  were a l s o v e r y good.  Bill's  w e r e i n s p e l l i n g , p u n c t u a t i o n a n d grammar. always  interesting  errors. this  fluent. weaknesses  H i s e s s a y s were  and w e l l - o r g a n i z e d b u t r i d d l e d  H i s problems  i n writing  His  with  w e r e somewhat u n i q u e i n  class.  S u k j i v a n was  a landed immigrant  married with three children.  from I n d i a .  She  was  She h a d a t t e n d e d c o l l e g e i n  I n d i a a l t h o u g h she h a d n o t g r a d u a t e d .  Her p l e a s a n t n a t u r e  a n d e n t h u s i a s m f o r t h e w o r k made h e r an a s s e t t o t h e  class.  S u k j i v a n ' s E n g l i s h development  i n that  h e r s p e e c h was English.  In writing,  a v o i d i n g run-on was  fairly  fluent,  similar to B i l l ' s  a n d she u n d e r s t o o d  conversational  h o w e v e r , she h a d some  difficulty  s e n t e n c e s and s e n t e n c e f r a g m e n t  typical  c o l l e g e programs. reflected  was  of u n s k i l l e d The  errors,  and  LI writers preparing f o r  content of her essays,  h e r m a t u r i t y and h e r i n t e r e s t  though,  i n t h e themes  studied i n class.  Jaesun was teacher. university  f r o m K o r e a where she h a d b e e n w o r k i n g a s a  H e r g o a l was  t o f i n i s h ESL  and t h e n go t o a  i n the U n i t e d States to t r a i n f o r a p o s i t i o n  in  48 tourism. of  the E n g l i s h  course in  Upon e n t e r i n g  l a n g u a g e and had  f o r h e r own  the semester  indicated that  Also  Sun  interest.  that  to remain  was  to her  5 writing, i n Level  r e a l i z e d she was she  no  college  skills.  4.  in  l o n g e r l e a r n i n g new  c e r t a i n that  helpful.  She  important  ideas".  In  and  and  her so  Sun  initially  was  t h e w r i t i n g c o u r s e w o u l d be p a r t i c u l a r l y  enjoyed,  however,  Although  "thinking  h e r s y n t a x was  t h e c o n t e n t o f h e r e s s a y s was  always  hard  about  very i r r e g u l a r ,  thoughtfully  presented  an i n t e r e s t i n g manner.  S e v e n o f t h e y o u n g women i n t h e c l a s s w e r e f r o m All  when  vocabulary  p r i o r c o u r s e s , t h e f o c u s h a d b e e n on c o n v e r s a t i o n ,  not  to  semester  came t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e .  n o t done v e r y much w r i t i n g i n E n g l i s h  college,  i n the c i t y  A f t e r one  had  early  she  a u n i v e r s i t y graduate  had been e n r o l l e d a t a p r i v a t e  structures,  in  writing  B e f o r e coming t o s t u d y a t the u n i v e r s i t y  improve her c o n v e r s a t i o n a l she  a g o o d command  When I s u g g e s t e d  she p r e f e r r e d  Sun  had  chosen to take the  she move t o L e v e l  from Korea,  business.  the c l a s s , Jaesun  o f them h a d b e e n a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e  a p p r o x i m a t e l y one  year.  Yukiko was  Japan.  for  an e n t h u s i a s t i c s k i  49 b o a r d e r - and c l a s s p a r t i c i p a n t .  She t a c k l e d h e r  a s s i g n m e n t s w i t h e n e r g y , a c c e p t e d s u g g e s t i o n s a n d was a competent  writer.  Riyoko, t h e s e c o n d o f t h e s e v e n , h a d b e e n g i v e n p e r m i s s i o n t o t a k e t h e L e v e l 3 grammar p r e r e q u i s i t e concurrently with the Level 4 writing class.  She was n o t a s  c o n f i d e n t a w r i t e r a s some o f t h e o t h e r s a l t h o u g h h e r w o r k was c e r t a i n l y a c c e p t a b l e . Riyoko w i l l worked  enroll  When h e r ESL p r o g r a m  i n t h e Tourism program.  i s finished,  I n Japan,  Riyoko  a s a s e c r e t a r y a n d s a v e d money t o come t o C a n a d a .  She was a v e r y m o t i v a t e d s t u d e n t i n my c l a s s a n d h a d a c l e a r g o a l t o w a r d s w h i c h s h e was w o r k i n g .  L i k e R i y o k o , Kyoko a l s o s a v e d money t o a t t e n d in  Canada.  T h i s summer s h e r e t u r n e d t o J a p a n t o w o r k .  she c a n s a v e e n o u g h f o r t u i t i o n a n d l i v i n g will  college If  expenses, she  r e t u r n f o r one more .year a n d t a k e T o u r i s m c o u r s e s .  t h i s c o u r s e , Kyoko approached  a w r i t i n g t a s k i n much t h e  same way a s a s k i l l e d n a t i v e s p e a k e r w o u l d d o . i d e a s about h e r t o p i c , wrote d r a f t s , w r i t t e n , made numerous c h a n g e s  In  She g a t h e r e d  r e - r e a d what s h e h a d  and f i n a l l y ,  edited f o r  surface e r r o r s before handing i n her essay f o r e v a l u a t i o n .  Satoko, a n o t h e r y o u n g J a p a n e s e  woman, h a d g r a d u a t e d  f r o m u n i v e r s i t y a n d was a l s o p e r c e p t i v e a n d c a r e f u l  i n her  w r i t t e n assignments.  was  Her knowledge o f t h e language  p r e c i s e and h e r work t h o u g h t f u l l y c r a f t e d . assignments still  were c r e a t i v e  a t times d i f f i c u l t  Most o f S a t o k o ' s  i n terms o f c o n t e n t .  S y n t a x was  f o r h e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y when s h e was  t r y i n g t o express complex concepts.  L i k e S a t o k o , Naomi, t o o , was a c a r e f u l , writer.  She p l a n n e d t o r e m a i n  Tourism courses. Japan, her.  competent  i n Canada i n o r d e r t o t a k e  Naomi h a d g r a d u a t e d f r o m u n i v e r s i t y i n  and so she worked d i l i g e n t l y a t any t a s k p r e s e n t e d t o She was q u i e t a n d c a r e f u l  i nher contributions to the  work o f t h e c l a s s .  Terumi's w e a k e s t s u b j e c t ,  s h e s a i d , was w r i t i n g .  At  t h e t i m e o f t h e s t u d y , s h e was i n L e v e l 5 r e a d i n g , concurrently with Level 4 writing, had n o t e d t h e d i f f i c u l t y Terumi  she had w r i t i n g about  literature.  had been a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e f o r t h r e e  semesters in  and h e r r e a d i n g t e a c h e r  and had p r o g r e s s e d from L e v e l 2 t o L e v e l 4 w r i t i n g  three semesters.  W h i l e s h e was a c o n s c i e n t i o u s w o r k e r ,  h e r v o c a b u l a r y was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y d e v e l o p e d  f o r academic  51 writing.  Consequently,  she had problems w i t h  other than personal, expressive w r i t i n g  Another 4 writing  less proficient  f o r a second  time.  assignments  activities.  s t u d e n t , Chie, was t a k i n g L e v e l She h a d n o t d e v e l o p e d h e r own  v o i c e and i n o r d e r t o p r o d u c e t h e work she f e l t w o u l d p l e a s e t h e t e a c h e r , s h e u s e d a t h e s a u r u s t o "improve" vocabulary.  her  Because she s p r i n k l e d t h e s e n e w l y - f o u n d  words throughout  her essay, at times her sentences  incomprehensible.  Chie had f o r s e v e r a l semesters  content  were written  m a i n l y e x p r e s s i v e , j o u r n a l e n t r i e s and had r e c e i v e d relatively  little  feedback on h e r w r i t i n g .  consequence, she found i t d i f f i c u l t  As a  t o accept the fact  h e r w o r k d i d n o t meet t h e s t a n d a r d s e x p e c t e d a t t h i s of  t h e ESL w r i t i n g program.  that  level  N o n e t h e l e s s C h i e was h o p i n g t o  be a d m i t t e d t o C o m p u t e r A i d e d D r a f t i n g i n S e p t e m b e r o f 1997 and,  t h e r e f o r e , must c o m p l e t e  Level 5 writing  i n t h e summer.  George was a s t u d e n t f r o m T a i w a n who b e g a n h i s s t u d i e s i n L e v e l 1 ("high b e g i n n e r " )  at the u n i v e r s i t y  college.  G e o r g e h a d p r o g r e s s e d s u c c e s s f u l l y f r o m one l e v e l each  semester.  t o another  W h i l e he was t o be commended, he h a d  progressed almost too r a p i d l y , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r a  language  52 program.  In the peer response s e s s i o n s ,  difficulty t o him.  reading  He  worked v e r y  hard to complete h i s w r i t i n g  H i s w r i t i n g , however, d i d not  he  d i d i n the  resonate  Grace, a n o t h e r T a i w a n e s e s t u d e n t ,  use  her  I f she own  incorporated  needed i n f o r m a t i o n  experience,  she  read  that information  e s s a y s were o f t e n not  was  who  returned  order  not  f o r an e s s a y , r a t h e r  i n the  i n t o her  students  l i b r a r y and assignment.  than  then Again  f o r that reason  her I  i n t h i s c l a s s , Asako,  whose a t t e n d a n c e was  t o K o r e a a t m i d - t e r m ; Ho  to t r a v e l ;  and  Nao  who  was  not  l a s t month o f c l a s s .  i n c l u d e d i n the  students  similar  liked.  a u d i t i n g and  p a r t of the  with his voice.  as w e l l d e v e l o p e d o r c o h e r e n t as  T h e r e were f o u r o t h e r who  library.  wrote i n a  h e r w r i t i n g l a c k e d a s e n s e o f v o i c e and  would have  great  a l o u d b e c a u s e many w o r d s w e r e u n f a m i l i a r  assignments, s y n t h e s i z i n g reading  manner.  George had  described  research.  Tom,  Chung who  withdrew i n  well for a  significant  These f o u r s t u d e n t s  For  a b o v e , t h o s e who  i n the peer response s e s s i o n s ,  irregular;  this  study,  the  were  twelve  participated faithfully  c o n s t i t u t e d the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  53 The  Course  The  Level 4 w r i t i n g course,  "Advanced C o m p o s i t i o n  Skills"  (CESL 048)  i s b a s e d on t h e c o u r s e  a p p r o v e d b y t h e E d u c a t i o n a l P o l i c y and committee at the u n i v e r s i t y c o l l e g e . is  to assist  entitled  P l a n n i n g Review The  goal of the  students to demonstrate t h e i r a b i l i t y  well-organized,  outline  thoughtful compositions  of  course  to write  approximately  f i v e hundred words i n l e n g t h , i n r e a d i n e s s f o r the composition course long spanning  i n L e v e l 5.  The  course  i s sixty  hours  a t w e l v e week p e r i o d .  C o u r s e o b j e c t i v e s a r e more d e t a i l e d and o u t l i n e s t u d e n t s what i n s t r u c t o r s want them t o a c h i e v e .  f o r the  Attention  i s d i r e c t e d t o i n c r e a s i n g c o n t r o l o v e r grammar i n E n g l i s h , i m p r o v i n g v o c a b u l a r y and u s i n g a v a r i e t y o f patterns to express  complex i d e a s .  Techniques  w r i t i n g and b r a i n s t o r m i n g a r e p r a c t i s e d . of the course  i s on d e v e l o p i n g a l o g i c a l  a t h e s i s and w i t h a d e q u a t e s u p p o r t i n g  The  c o u r s e o u t l i n e f o r CESL 048  sentence  The  free  main emphasis  coherent  essay  with  detail.  becomes  i n s t r u c t o r ' s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s , and CESL 048  s u c h as  a r e o b l i g e d t o f o l l o w t h i s document.  the teachers Within  of these  54 parameters,  however, t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e freedom;  c h o o s e t h e i r own t e x t s ,  f o r example, and s e l e c t  teachers  approaches  to the teaching of w r i t i n g which are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  their  v a l u e s and b e l i e f s .  The C l a s s In t h e w i n t e r semester, For t h i s course, Culture  (Gregg,  I taught  CESL 048 s e c t i o n 03.  I chose t o use the t e x t , 1993).  Communication and  The a u t h o r d e s c r i b e s t h e t e x t a s  follows:  The t e x t . . . i n t e g r a t e s r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , a n d c o m p o s i n g s k i l l s w i t h r i c h content m a t e r i a l from a well-known freshman anthropology textbook. The b r o a d s u b j e c t o f human c u l t u r e h a s p r o v e d s t i m u l a t i n g t o b o t h s t u d e n t s and i n s t r u c t o r s , a n d i t p r o v i d e s a u s e f u l s p r i n g b o a r d f o r - c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n and c o l l e g e - l e v e l e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g (p. v i i ) . For each chapter  i n the text there i s a reading  s e l e c t i o n o n a s p e c i f i c theme r e l a t e d t o c u l t u r e ,  a focus  vocabulary;  as  sentence  sentence  combining;  l e v e l w r i t i n g e x e r c i s e s such s m a l l group assignments;  dealing with aspects of composition  and a s e c t i o n  development.  I s u p p l e m e n t e d t h e t e x t where n e c e s s a r y to a s s i s t  on  with materials  s t u d e n t s w i t h a s p e c t s o f w r i t i n g t h a t were  55 p r o b l e m a t i c f o r them.  O f t e n t h e s e m a t e r i a l s were  t o h e l p them p r a c t i s e d i f f i c u l t present additional  designed  grammatical p a t t e r n s o r t o  i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e theme o f t h e  p a r t i c u l a r chapter under study.  At t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e semester  s t u d e n t s were g i v e n an  o v e r v i e w o f t h e c o u r s e o u t l i n i n g my e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d assignments  t h e y were r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e .  t h e c o u r s e was o n t h e e s s a y . covered d u r i n g t h e semester,  The f o c u s o f  F o r each o f t h e f i v e  chapters  s t u d e n t s were r e q u i r e d t o w r i t e  a n e s s a y o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e h u n d r e d w o r d s o n t h e theme o f the chapter being studied. Behaviour" C h a p t e r 2.  i n Chapter  1 and " C u l t u r e and Food H a b i t s " i n  Themes o f t h e n e x t t h r e e c h a p t e r s a r e  r e p r o d u c t i o n and f a m i l y , and  Themes a r e " C u l t u r e a n d Human  a.cross c u l t u r a l view of economics  the c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n i n g of time.  Composition t o p i c s are  g i v e n i n t h e t e x t ; however, s t u d e n t s were p e r m i t t e d t o w r i t e o n a n y a s p e c t o f t h e theme w h i c h was o f p a r t i c u l a r t o them.  interest  The o n l y r e q u i r e m e n t was t h a t t h e y s e c u r e d my  approval of the topic selected.  The e s s a y s w e r e p r e p a r e d  m a i n l y a t home w h i l e b r a i n s t o r m i n g , o u t l i n i n g ,  free  writing  and d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e r e a d i n g s e l e c t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e themes were a c t i v i t i e s  conducted w i t h t h e whole c l a s s .  56 In a d d i t i o n to essays, journal  s t u d e n t s were r e q u i r e d t o  e n t r i e s o n c e e v e r y two  d e s c r i b e and  weeks.  These e n t r i e s were t o  t h e n r e f l e c t u p o n an e x p e r i e n c e  daily lives.  from students'  F o r c e r t a i n e n t r i e s , t h e s t u d e n t s were  d i r e c t e d t o r e f l e c t upon t h e i r c o u r s e work, t h e activities writing.  and The  journal  e n t r i e s were not marked f o r s p e l l i n g , I r e a d and  responded t o  asking questions, suggesting reading  encouraging  classroom  t h e p r o g r e s s t h e y were making i n t h e i r  grammar o r p u n c t u a t i o n . entries,  further reflection.  Students  the  material,  r e c e i v e d a mark o f  5 out of 5 i f they completed the t a s k w i t h evidence and  attention.  No  of  care  s t u d e n t r e c e i v e d a mark o f l e s s t h a n  o u t o f 5 u n l e s s t h e j o u r n a l was t h e n was  write  not handed i n .  The  3.5  mark  0.  Past Approaches t o R e v i s i o n I n p r e v i o u s s e m e s t e r s I had p r i m a r i l y through  approached r e v i s i o n  teacher-student conferences.  brought t h e i r d r a f t s to i n d i v i d u a l conferences t i m e s , and  t o g e t h e r we  organization,  Students at  appointed  d i s c u s s e d i s s u e s of meaning,  coherence,  adequate development o f i d e a s and  c l e a r focus f o r the composition.  Some a t t e n t i o n was  given  a  57 to  s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e and grammar, p a r t i c u l a r l y when s u c h  problems  o b f u s c a t e d the meaning t h e s t u d e n t w i s h e d t o  convey.  In class,  f o r r e v i s i o n purposes I had  previously  g i v e n s t u d e n t s prompt s h e e t s w h i c h d i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n  to  b o t h c o n t e n t and m e c h a n i c s so t h a t s t u d e n t s were h e l p e d t o s e l f correct t h e i r essays. taking place,  I monitored i n d i v i d u a l  At times i n the past, to  When t h i s c l a s s a c t i v i t y  was  students' progress.  I had used p e e r r e s p o n s e  groups  h e l p s t u d e n t s work t o g e t h e r t o e v a l u a t e each o t h e r ' s  writing,  b u t n o t w i t h any c o n s i s t e n c y o r  satisfaction.  While the t h e o r y i n support of peer response groups i n second language classrooms i s s u b s t a n t i v e ,  (Samway,  Mittan,  Schlumberger,  1992),  1989;  U r z u a , 1987;  M a n g e l s d o r f and  1993;  I had found managing such groups p r o b l e m a t i c .  Problems value.  of o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e n undermined the First  of a l l , I found i t d i f f i c u l t  into productive units.  backgrounds, English.  who  t o group s t u d e n t s  My w r i t i n g c l a s s e s h a d  g e n e r a l l y composed o f s t u d e n t s f r o m many  potential  been  language  possessed v a r y i n g degrees of f a c i l i t y  In addition,  they brought t o w r i t i n g groups  d i v e r s e p e r s o n a l i t i e s and t h e i r d i f f e r i n g a t t i t u d e s working i n groups.  with their  toward  W h i l e many s t u d e n t s w e r e c o m f o r t a b l e  58 w i t h g r o u p w o r k , some w e r e r e l u c t a n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e  i nthe  p r o c e s s a n d one o r two e v e n e x h i b i t e d o u t r i g h t r e s i s t a n c e . second problem I e x p e r i e n c e d u s i n g peer response groups  A  was  t h a t dominant s t u d e n t s tended t o d i r e c t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and shy, q u i e t s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d v e r y l i t t l e .  The l a c k o f  commitment o n t h e p a r t o f s t u d e n t s p o s e d y e t a n o t h e r problem.  Some o f t h e s t u d e n t s a r r i v e d u n p r e p a r e d t o  c o n t r i b u t e t o group  s e s s i o n s o r were a b s e n t w i t h o u t good  r e a s o n on t h e day o f t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n .  The l a c k o f  commitment t o t h e o t h e r members o f t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e rendered t h e group  ineffective or at least  limited  group  what  c o u l d be a c h i e v e d .  In the  s p i t e o f t h e s e problems which a r e a l s o documented i n  research (Bell,  groups  still  communicative  1991; M i t t a n ,  a p p e a l e d t o me.  First,  language t e a c h i n g  1992), t h e use o f groups  1989), peer  response  i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e on  ( S a v i g n o n , 1994; C o e l h o ,  i s encouraged.  The i n t e r a c t i o n  w h i c h t a k e s p l a c e has been found t o a i d i n language acquisition.  Cooperative learning theory also advocates the  use o f groups  f o r improved s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s ,  achievement, (Kagan,  increased motivation,  1989/1990; M c G r o a r t y ,  academic  among o t h e r b e n e f i t s .  1989; M c D o n e l l , 1992.)  Last  59 s e m e s t e r , t h e r e f o r e , when one success  she  had  had  o f my  colleagues reported  w i t h p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s b a s e d on  v i d e o a v a i l a b l e i n our u n i v e r s i t y - c o l l e g e l i b r a r y , interested. instructors  T h i s v i d e o a l s o has f r o m whom she  been u s e d by  l e a r n e d of i t ,  and  the she  I  a was  university tried  a p p r o a c h t o p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s d e m o n s t r a t e d on t h e w i t h her L e v e l 3 w r i t i n g students. comments she noted  heard.  She  was  the  the video  amazed a t  For instance, students  i n her  class  the r e p e t i t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r words i n t h e i r  classmates' read aloud.  w r i t i n g as t h e y  l i s t e n e d to the essays  being  Encouraged, I determined to i n v e s t i g a t e the  video,  described i n f u l l  so,  decided  t o use  t h i s m o d e l o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s w i t h my  writing  students  d u r i n g the F a l l  seemed t o w o r k r e a s o n a b l y I managed o n l y one note,  b e l o w , and  1996  but  s e s s i o n . I t was  d i s c u s s i o n of a c t i v i t i e s  due  The  procedure  to pressure  interesting  of  f o r me  time, to  of the semester, i n a  the students  s e v e r a l s t a t e d t h a t t h e y had peer review  semester.  well,  t h o u g h , t h a t a t t h e end  a f t e r doing  felt  had  been u s e f u l ,  wanted t o p a r t i c i p a t e  s e s s i o n s more f r e q u e n t l y .  Consequently,  w i n t e r s e m e s t e r w i t h CESL 048-03, I p r e p a r e d  i n the f o r the  t o have p e e r  r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s b a s e d on t h e v i d e o p r e s e n t a t i o n .  60  The  Peer Response Model In  t h e w i n t e r s e m e s t e r o f 1997, f o r t h e p e e r  response  work, I u s e d as a model t h e v i d e o e n t i t l e d S t u d e n t Groups:  Demonstrating the-Process  (1988).  Writing  The p e e r  r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n on t h e v i d e o i s based on " t h e t e a c h e r l e s s writing class" 1973).  d e s c r i b e d i n W r i t i n g Without Teachers  (Elbow,  Elbow d e s c r i b e s t h e t e a c h e r l e s s w r i t i n g c l a s s as  follows: I t t r i e s t o t a k e you out o f darkness and s i l e n c e . I t i s a c l a s s o f seven t o twelve people. I t meets a t . l e a s t o n c e a week. E v e r y o n e t r i e s t o g i v e e a c h w r i t e r a s e n s e o f how h i s w o r d s w e r e e x p e r i e n c e d . The g o a l i s f o r t h e w r i t e r t o come a s c l o s e a s p o s s i b l e t o b e i n g a b l e t o s e e a n d e x p e r i e n c e h i s own w o r d s t h r o u g h s e v e n or e i g h t people. T h a t ' s a l l (p. 7 7 ) . The  peer response group  members.  The g r o u p  i n the video consists of four  demonstrates  t h e p r o c e s s to' a g r o u p o f  s t u d e n t s and t o us, t h e v i d e o audience.  First,  t h e group  member r e a d s h e r e s s a y t h r o u g h f r o m b e g i n n i n g t o e n d w h i l e the  others attentively l i s t e n .  one  i n t h e group  complete,  takes notes.  During the f i r s t Once t h e f i r s t  r e a d i n g , no  reading i s  t h o s e who h a v e b e e n l i s t e n i n g t a k e t h e t i m e t o  w r i t e one o r two s e n t e n c e s w h i c h s t a t e t h e i r g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e e s s a y as t h e y have u n d e r s t o o d i t . point,  At this  i f t h e r e a d e r / a u t h o r has n o t i c e d a n y t h i n g i n h i s / h e r  61 t e x t t h a t m i g h t n e e d t o be c h a n g e d l a t e r , it  down.  Then, t h e same e s s a y i s r e a d  During t h i s reading,  the other  a second  i f students  shown:  features they l i k e ,  ( E l b o w , p.9)  n o t e k e y words under t h r e e  "write It is  columns as  t h i n g s t h a t do n o t "work" f o r  them.and a r e a s o f c o n f u s i o n  +  time.  t h r e e g r o u p members  c o n s t a n t l y noting s p e c i f i c responses" helpful  he/she s h o u l d j o t  (Figure 3.1).  -  ?  F i g u r e 3.1. Sample o f n o t e s t a k e n during peer response session.  A f t e r t h e second reading,  t h e g r o u p members comment  o r a l l y on t h e n o t e s t h e y have t a k e n . listens  The  author/reader  t o a n d w r i t e s down a l l comments, p o s i t i v e a s w e l l a s  those that suggest p o s s i b l e r e v i s i o n s .  L a t e r , when t h e  a u t h o r s i t s down t o r e v i s e t h e t e x t , d e c i s i o n s c a n be made regarding  w h i c h comments t o a c t u p o n a n d w h i c h comments t o  62 set  aside.  oral  I n t h i s model i t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t d u r i n g t h e  feedback p a r t o f the process, the author not converse  w i t h t h e o t h e r g r o u p members. e x p l a i n o r defend the w r i t i n g  I t i svery tempting t o but the author's task i s t o  l i s t e n and take notes f o r r e v i s i o n  (Elbow,  1973).  Once a l l  t h r e e l i s t e n e r s have r e p o r t e d o r a l l y t o t h e a u t h o r , i t i s then the next student's t u r n t o present h i s / h e r w r i t i n g f o r response.  Reasons f o r Choosing implement peer response classroom practice a writing  t h e Model.  s e s s i o n s as an i n t e g r a l  i n t h e w i n t e r semester,  instructor  combined t o r e i n f o r c e  drafts  the decision  t o u s e t h e o r a l model o f i n the video.  As a  writing  I have o f t e n asked s t u d e n t s t o r e a d a l o u d  their  their  When t h e y d i d s o , i t was a s i f t h e y saw t h e i r i n a new l i g h t ,  objectified or  my e x p e r i e n c e a s  d u r i n g t h e s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s about  writing. writing  p a r t o f my  a n d my r e a d i n g o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e  peer response groups i l l u s t r a t e d instructor,  As I p r e p a r e d t o  (Zamel,  a t a d i s t a n c e from themselves -  1983).  When t h e y s t u m b l e d o v e r a w o r d  l o o k e d p u z z l e d a t t h e end o f a s e n t e n c e , t h e y were  indicating  an awareness o f a problem  - unconscious  perhaps-  63 t o w h i c h I , a s t h e t e a c h e r , drew t h e i r a t t e n t i o n . w r i t e r s e f f e c t e d t h e i r own r e p a i r s a t t h i s  My e x p e r i e n c e was e c h o e d response groups  Often  point.  i n Freedman's s t u d y o f p e e r  i n an L I s e t t i n g .  The t e a c h e r s t r u c t u r e d  t h e s e s s i o n s so t h a t s t u d e n t s r e a d t h e i r work a l o u d , explaining,  " I want k i d s t o HEAR t h e i r own w r i t i n g "  ( D i P a r d o a n d Freedman, 1988  p.135).  The a u t h o r s l i n k e d t h e  v a l u e o f r e a d i n g a l o u d t o Vygotsky's views o f speech, a "self-monitoring,  o r t h i n k i n g aloud which i s intermediate  between p u b l i c u t t e r a n c e s and i n n e r speech" p.94).  ( V y g o t s k y 1986,  In addition to the benefits of students hearing t h e i r  work, o r a l / a u r a l  i n t e r a c t i o n during peer response  sessions  i s a l s o a n e f f i c i e n t means o f p r o v i d i n g f e e d b a c k , much more efficient  i n terms o f time than s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s  or w r i t t e n feedback from t h e i n s t r u c t o r s .  I a l s o chose t h i s model because w r i t t e n prompts some i n s t r u c t o r s  t h e g r o u p s do n o t u s e  t o g u i d e t h e r e v i s i o n p r o c e s s even  though  f i n d that response sheets are h e l p f u l i n  s t r u c t u r i n g peer response  (Freedman,  1992; M i t t a n ,  1989) .  W i t h group work i n t h e p a s t , however, I have f o u n d t h a t i f s t u d e n t s were g i v e n a s h e e t t o f i l l  o u t , t h e s h e e t became  64 the focus of the group's a c t i v i t y . used to working themselves  individually,  w i t h t h e i r sheet  In addition, essays,  F o r s t u d e n t s who  the temptation t o  to f i l l  i f s t u d e n t s had  i n was  very  isolate inviting.  copies of each other's  t h e t y p e s o f r e v i s i o n s d i s c u s s e d and  consequently  t h e t y p e s o f r e v i s i o n s t h e y made, w e r e more l i k e l y on f o r m r a t h e r t h a n on c o n t e n t 1992,  p.260).  I n my  to  until  and  classroom response  s e s s i o n s , I wanted  o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a t t e n t i o n t o form  the e d i t i n g of the f i n a l  My  concern  f r o m my  'intuition'  of  delayed  draft.  f o r t h e f o c u s on o r a l p e e r  t h a n on w r i t t e n f e e d b a c k  focus  ( H e d g c o c k and L e f k o w i t z ,  s t u d e n t s ' a t t e n t i o n d i r e c t e d t o more g l o b a l m a t t e r s content  were  feedback  u s i n g a r e v i s i o n sheet  rather  stems a l s o  t h a t language a c q u i s i t i o n r e q u i r e s the  i n t e g r a t i o n of speaking,  listening,  (Manglesdorf,  reading i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the  implementation intuition. Hakuta  1989). of peer  My  response  r e a d i n g and  groups confirms  writing  that  I n I n O t h e r Words f o r e x a m p l e , B i a l y s t o k  and  (1994), emphasize the r o l e of s o c i e t y i n i n t e g r a t i n g  s p e e c h and  thought:  A l t h o u g h l a n g u a g e , t h o u g h t and a c t i o n a r e d i s t i n c t p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s t h a t (as f a r a s we c a n r e a d .  65 V y g o t s k y ' s t h e o r y ) m i g h t a s w e l l be i n n a t e , t h e r o l e o f s o c i e t y was t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e i r i n t e g r a t i o n a n d t h u s make p o s s i b l e t h e c r e a t i o n o f new l e v e l s o f t h i n k i n g , (p.183) The  peer response group  as s t r u c t u r e d i n t h e model I  a d o p t e d was a " s o c i a l  i n s t i t u t i o n bringing together"  language  thought  action  (peer t a l k ) ,  (revising)  (p.183)  ( w r i t i n g made p u b l i c ) a n d  t o make i t p o s s i b l e f o r t h e g r o u p members  t o c r e a t e new l e v e l s o f t h i n k i n g .  Moreover,  oral  feedback i n the w r i t i n g c l a s s i s  important f o r y e t another reason.  Peer response groups i n  w h i c h t h e f o c u s i s on s p e a k i n g about w r i t i n g g i v e s t u d e n t s further opportunities for practice f o r n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning t h a t speak  i n the target  (Manglesdorf, 1989).  language "The v o i c e s  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m c a n empower t h e v o i c e s  s t r u g g l i n g t o be h e a r d i n t h e p a p e r s "  (p.134).  The s p e a k i n g  voices provide a c r u c i a l dimension i n i n t e g r a t i n g the v o i c e of t h e thought w i t h the v o i c e o f the w r i t i n g .  Another reason f o r c h o o s i n g t o use an o r a l / a u r a l  model  o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s was t o c r e a t e a c o n t e x t w h e r e groups  c o u l d f u n c t i o n i n a s e m i - a u t o n o m o u s way.  s t u d e n t s a r e under  Although  t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e t e a c h e r and need a  p a s s i n g grade t o p r o g r e s s t o t h e next l e v e l ,  t e a c h e r s need  66 to  r e m a i n aware t h a t s t u d e n t s n e e d e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d a  of  c o n t r o l as much as p o s s i b l e  Asking students to participate  ( G e r e , 1987;  Myers,  i n peer response  sense  1990).  sessions  without d i r e c t i n g t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s with a r e v i s i o n sheet, I hoped, would h e l p s t u d e n t s t o f e e l  i n c o n t r o l of the  activity.  Conduct of the  Study  When t h e f i r s t semester,  e s s a y was  assigned i n the winter  s t u d e n t s w e r e made aware t h a t p e e r  s e s s i o n s w o u l d be a f e a t u r e o f t h e c l a s s . to  They were  alerted  t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y w e r e o b l i g e d t o come w i t h a d r a f t  their first The  response  first  essay t o read aloud i n peer response  1.  groups.  e s s a y t h a t s t u d e n t s w e r e a s s i g n e d i n CESL 048  b a s e d o n one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g  of  was  prompts.  The w e l l known a n t h r o p o l o g i s t M a r g a r e t Mead s t a t e d t h a t the c u l t u r e of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s does not v a l u e h i g h l y p e o p l e who a r e a g e d s i x t y - f i v e a n d older. Y e t a c c o r d i n g t o Mead, many e l d e r l y p e o p l e h a v e t h e wisdom, e n e r g y , a n d i n t e r e s t i n l i f e t o make s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e i r f a m i l i e s , n e i g h b o r h o o d s , and l a r g e r c o m m u n i t i e s . Compose an e s s a y o f a b o u t 500 w o r d s i n w h i c h y o u s u p p o r t Mead's v i e w . Use a s y o u r i l l u s t r a t i o n a n a c t u a l o l d e r p e r s o n whom y o u p e r s o n a l l y know. P r o v i d e some i n t r o d u c t o r y p h y s i c a l d e t a i l s t o b r i n g t h i s person to l i f e f o r your reader.  67 P r e s e n t some o f h i s o r h e r most a d m i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and/or a c t i o n s . Compose a s u i t a b l e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e s t a t e s y o u r i d e a on t h e t o p i c i n a d i f f e r e n t way f r o m y o u r i n t r o d u c t i o n . 2.  A t c e r t a i n t i m e s i n o u r l i v e s we come u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a p e r s o n who a f f e c t s us i n i m p o r t a n t and b e n e f i c i a l ways. W r i t e an e s s a y o f 400-500 words i n w h i c h you i d e n t i f y such a p e r s o n i n y o u r own l i f e . E x p l a i n how t h a t p e r s o n came t o influence your l i f e . G i v e a c l e a r and d e t a i l e d i l l u s t r a t i o n o f a s p e c i f i c change o r s p e c i f i c c h a n g e ( s ) ' t h a t r e s u l t e d because of t h a t person's i n f l u e n c e on y o u ( G r e g g , 1993. pp. 2 6 - 2 7 ) .  These t o p i c s a r e p o p u l a r w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s and a r e well presented.  C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s was  which t o begin peer response  Language T r a i n i n g . response session,  generally  a good e s s a y w i t h  sessions.  In p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the f i r s t  peer  students d i s c u s s e d s u i t a b l e language  u s e i n t h e i r comments a b o u t  f e a t u r e s t h a t were p u z z l i n g  to or  p r o b l e m a t i c i n g r o u p members' c o m p o s i t i o n s . From t h e v i d e o , students t r a n s c r i b e d the appropriate f a c i l i t a t i v e ( F i g u r e 3.2)  a n d c r e a t e d o t h e r s t h e y f e l t w o u l d be  phrases helpful.  68  " I was  wondering..."  "That d o e s n ' t w o r k f o r me..." "I  think..."  " I am c o n f u s e d a b o u t . . . " " I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d what y o u mean when...." " I was w o r r i e d a b o u t . . . " F i g u r e 3.2.  F a c i l i t a t i v e phrases i n peer response  As t h e l i s t  of introductory phrases  s t u d e n t s were encouraged  illustrates,  t o use " I " statements i n t h e i r  f e e d b a c k t o w r i t e r s and t o a v o i d t h e modal "should",  sessions.  auxiliaries  "must", "need t o " a n d "have t o " s i n c e t h e s e m o d a l s  i n d i c a t e o b l i g a t i o n and c o m p u l s i o n , and g i v e a u t h o r i t y t o the speaker.  S t u d e n t s a l s o were c a u t i o n e d a g a i n s t u s i n g t h e  modals which express p r o h i b i t i o n :  " c a n n o t " , may n o t " , " a r e  n o t a l l o w e d t o " , " s h o u l d n o t " , "had b e t t e r n o t " ( L e e c h a n d Svartvik,  1975 p.  143-145).  C o n s e q u e n t l y , s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h w o u l d n o t be deemed appropriate i n the context of peer response include,  among o t h e r s ,  those l i s t e d below  i n t r o d u c t o r y phrases a l lbegin with  sessions  ( F i g . 3.3).  These  'you', u n l i k e t h o s e i n  69 Fig.  3.2  w h i c h b e g i n w i t h ' I ' , and t h e y i n c l u d e m o d a l s t h a t  c a r r y o b l i g a t i o n thereby g i v i n g the speaker the  t h e command i n  interaction.  "You  s h o u l d h a v e more..."  "You "You F i g u r e 3.3.  have t o change..." cannot  use  I n h i b i t i n g phrases  that..." i n peer response s e s s i o n s .  A d i s c u s s i o n of s u i t a b l e language peer response  i s essential  s e s s i o n s b e g i n ; my p a s t e x p e r i e n c e and  r e s e a r c h have r e v e a l e d the r e l u c t a n c e of b o t h f i r s t second  before  language  the and  students to o f f e r negative evaluations to  their, classmates  (Freedman, 1 9 9 2 ) .  However, i f s t u d e n t s  h a v e ways o f b e i n g " g r a c i o u s , c o u r t e o u s and g e n t l e " w i t h each o t h e r p.  (Zander,  23), they w i l l  1983,  feel  p.  7 i n Carson  less uncomfortable  and N e l s o n , and v e n t u r e  comment on n e g a t i v e f e a t u r e s o f t h e t e x t s b e i n g  The  Teacher's  Role.  In the peer response  1994, to  shared.  sessions, I  d e s i r e d t h a t t h e g r o u p s be as autonomous as p o s s i b l e .  In  70 k e e p i n g w i t h my g o a l o f s t u d e n t autonomy, I e n c o u r a g e d s t u d e n t s t o f o r m t h e i r own g r o u p s .  Because s t u d e n t s ,  h o w e v e r , seemed r e l u c t a n t t o do s o , I p l a c e d s t u d e n t s i n groups t a k i n g i n t o account i s s u e s o f gender background. abilities  S i n c e I knew l i t t l e  students' w r i t i n g  when I met them a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e m e s t e r ,  their writing skill initial  about  and language  was n o t a f a c t o r i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e  groups.  P a r t i c u l a r l y at the b e g i n n i n g of the semester, I m o n i t o r e d group work d u r i n g t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e mainly t o assist task.  sessions,  students i n following the structure of the  Often at f i r s t ,  two a f t e r t h e f i r s t  s t u d e n t s f o r g o t t o t a k e a moment o r  r e a d i n g t o j o t down a b r i e f g e n e r a l  i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e essay which had been r e a d .  At times the  r e a d e r f o r g o t t h a t h e / s h e was n o t t o d e f e n d t h e e s s a y b u t s i m p l y t o n o t e how t h e w r i t i n g a f f e c t e d t h o s e who Finally,  listened.  I m o n i t o r e d t h e l a n g u a g e s t u d e n t s u s e d when g i v i n g  t h e i r g r o u p members f e e d b a c k o n w r i t i n g . M o n i t o r i n g t h e l a n g u a g e was p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e m e s t e r when p e e r r e s p o n s e was new, a n d s t u d e n t s w e r e u n f a m i l i a r w i t h p o l i t e ways t o make what m i g h t h a v e seemed  71 t o them rude, classmates  had  negative  t h o u g h , my  by a t t e m p t i n g  students'  to generate  ability  i n the group.  not  to  encourage  I felt  t o c o n v e y my  This  belief  knowledge through  normal d i s c o u r s e "  e s t a b l i s h e d and  ( B r u f f e e , 1986,  p.  i n the  interaction  maintained  648),  would a l s o r e a l i z e t h a t the teacher's  ( B r u f f e e , 1986  p.  649)  but  then  the  authority lay  i n " g o d l i n e s s , n e a r n e s s t o t h e m i n d o f God",  t r a d i t i o n a l view  I  t h a t i f I c o u l d c o n v e y t o them t h a t  k n o w l e d g e i s "a s o c i a l a r t i f a c t  students  r o l e was  commitment t o t h e i r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s .  strove to achieve  through  their  done.  Most i m p o r t a n t , students'  remarks about the work  as  i n the  i n h i s or  her  m e m b e r s h i p i n an e s t a b l i s h e d c o m m u n i t y o f p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s of E n g l i s h .  The  First  Peer Response S e s s i o n .  c o m p l e t e d d r a f t s and classroom  and  t h e g r o u p s were a b l e t o s p r e a d  laughed  and  arrived  were p l a c e d i n p e e r r e s p o n s e  The  o f t h e room.  we  Students  w e r e i n was  l a r g e w i t h movable  Many o f t h e s t u d e n t s  out  with  groups.  desk/tables,  into different  were v e r y a n x i o u s ,  parts and  c h a t t e d nervously w h i l e s e a t i n g arrangements  72 w e r e b e i n g made.  B e f o r e s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y b e g a n t o r e a d , we  q u i c k l y reviewed t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t a s k and t h e s u g g e s t i o n s f o r l a n g u a g e u s e , a n d I made n o t e s o n t h e blackboard of appropriate f a c i l i t a t i v e phrases T h e n i t was t i m e t o . r e a d . first.  (Figure 3.2).  G r o u p s d e t e r m i n e d who w o u l d go  I n some c a s e s a g r o u p member was e a g e r t o r e a d t o  "get i t o v e r w i t h " .  I n o t h e r groups,  c h i l d r e n ' s game " p a p e r ,  scissors,  determine the lead p a r t i c i p a n t .  My t a s k a t t h a t p o i n t , p r o c e d u r e and language necessary.  Because  students played the  stone" o r tossed a c o i n t o Then t h e r e a d i n g began.  a s I saw i t , was t o m o n i t o r  and t o encourage  s t u d e n t s where  t h i s t a s k was s o s t r u c t u r e d ,  a n d i t was  a m p l y c l e a r how a n d when e a c h s t u d e n t was t o p a r t i c i p a t e , t h e r e was l i t t l e of  t h e group.  d i f f i c u l t y w i t h d o m i n a t i o n b y one s t u d e n t  Similarly,  t h e s h y s t u d e n t s who w e r e  passed over i n whole c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s some c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e r e s p o n s e  often  w e r e r e q u i r e d t o make  sessions.  I d i d need t o m o n i t o r language u s e , however.  One  p a r t i c u l a r l y v o c a l s t u d e n t i n t h e e n t h u s i a s m o f t h e moment h a d many s u g g e s t i o n s t o make, a l l o f w h i c h w e r e p h r a s e d a s  73 s t a t e m e n t s o f o b l i g a t i o n and c o m p u l s i o n , for  to...",  example.  I remained reminded  w i t h t h i s group  this  f o r a few m i n u t e s and  t h e s t u d e n t t o use t h e p h r a s e s on t h e b o a r d ,  c o a c h i n g h i m when n e c e s s a r y . and  "You h a v e  The e x c h a n g e was g o o d humored,  i n d i v i d u a l was q u i c k l y s e l f - c o r r e c t i n g .  Later,  w h e n e v e r he s l i p p e d i n t o t h e o l d p a t t e r n , he was r e m i n d e d the o t h e r group  by  members t o r e - p h r a s e h i s comments  appropriately.  I t was a l s o n e c e s s a r y w i t h one g r o u p  t o remind the  members t h a t t h e y w e r e t o g i v e g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n s a f t e r t h e first  r e a d i n g , a n d t h e n t h e a u t h o r was t o r e a d h i s / h e r  a second  time.  Finally,  I remained  q u e s t i o n s and t o encourage task.  essay  a v a i l a b l e t o answer  s t u d e n t s as they completed t h e  One s t u d e n t , f o r e x a m p l e , was q u i t e p u z z l e d when s h e  r e a l i z e d h e r e s s a y was d i f f e r e n t  from t h e essays o f t h e  o t h e r s i n h e r group.  She was c o n v i n c e d s h e h a d n o t done t h e  assignment  B e f o r e she c o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e  properly.  t a s k a t h a n d , s h e n e e d e d r e a s s u r a n c e t h a t no two e s s a y s , e v e n o n t h e same t o p i c , w o u l d  e v e r be d e v e l o p e d  i n exactly  t h e same way a n d t h a t h e r e s s a y a l t h o u g h d i f f e r e n t  from h e r  74 classmates'  was  an a c c e p t a b l e  p a r t of the  c l a s s I simply  some t i m e t o w r i t e i n my  first  these groups  hours of c l a s s time,  had  expected.  At  the  end  r e v i s e t h e i r d r a f t s and  of c l a s s , students  in this  first  peer response  journal entry a f t e r this f i r s t  the  an  t o c o n s i d e r what t h e y  had  learned  t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r views about the  i n w h i c h t h e y had  e n t r y became t h e  E v a l u a t i o n of the process, study.  Gere  transforms  participated.  instrument  experience  s e s s i o n was  f o r the  activity  the  session.  opportunity and  students  classroom  Hence, t h e  of e v a l u a t i o n f o r the I considered  (1987) s t a t e s , t h a t  e s s e n t i a l to  as K e n n e t h B r u f f e e d e s c r i b e s  the  that  the work of w r i t i n g groups i n t o the k i n d 'negotiate'  journal  session.  " i t i s evaluation  l e a r n i n g that enables p a r t i c i p a n t s to  to  f o r marking.  i n which  t h e i r t h o u g h t s on  than I  were a s k e d  copies  a journal entry  were t o d e s c r i b e  i t took  somewhat l o n g e r  prepare f i n a l  In a d d i t i o n , I requested  The  functioned.  s e s s i o n went q u i t e s m o o t h l y a l t h o u g h  e n t i r e two  of t a k i n g p a r t  For  j o u r n a l s i n c e I w a n t e d t o document  the  students  topic.  observed; i n a d d i t i o n , I took  as much as p o s s i b l e a b o u t how  This  approach t o the  of  their  i t i n t o the normal d i s c o u r s e  way, of  75 knowledgeable peers"  (p.  i n the j o u r n a l enabled  111). Making t h e i r views  concrete  s t u d e n t s t o move t o w a r d s new  insights.  The  e v a l u a t i o n of peer response  sessions i n a journal  e n t r y s t i m u l a t e d t h e k i n d o f r e f l e c t i o n d e s c r i b e d as "metacognitive experience"  (Flavell  order t o w r i t e a j o u r n a l essay session, about,  1979, p. 9 0 8 ) , f o r i n  i n response  t o the peer  s t u d e n t s needed t o q u e s t i o n themselves,  t o p u z z l e over the v a r i o u s events which  group  t o wonder  took p l a c e ,  or t o a r t i c u l a t e the f e e l i n g s they experienced during the task.  As a r e s u l t ,  some s t u d e n t s d e t e r m i n e d  d i f f e r e n t l y d u r i n g t h e next  response  s e s s i o n o r t o spend  more t i m e d e v e l o p i n g a f o c u s f o r t h e n e x t s t u d y new v o c a b u l a r y e n c o u n t e r e d session.  t o behave  assignment,  during the peer  response  Metacognitive experiences according t o F l a v e l l can  l e a d a n i n d i v i d u a l t o e s t a b l i s h new g o a l s , c a n a f f e c t person's  or to  a  m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge base and c a n a c t i v a t e  cognitive strategies  (pp. 9 0 8 - 9 0 9 ) .  This reach i n  m e t a c o g n i t i o n was i n p a r t what I e n v i s i o n e d t h e j o u r n a l entries  accomplishing.  76 Subsequent Peer Response S e s s i o n s . of  the semester,  the f i r s t  peer  response  g r o u p s met  d r a f t of each essay assigned.  t h e t a s k r e m a i n e d t h e same, and my c o n t i n u e d t o be one abilities,  of  For the  together to The  learning"  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the  essays, point essay.  journal,  and  (Tebo-Messina,  1989,  p.9).  f i x e d u n t i l mid-term at which  T h i s mark was  results  students to that  p l u s t h e r e s u l t s o f an  For the regrouping,  time  b a s e d on a l l t h e  q u i z z e s done by t h e  i n the semester,  task  authority  g r o u p s were r e o r g a n i z e d , t h i s t i m e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t h e m i d - t e r m mark.  of  "nurturing students' natural  G r o u p m e m b e r s h i p was  of  review  structure  t r u s t i n g t h e m . . . t r y i n g t o g i v e them  o v e r t h e i r own  remainder  in-class  i n order to create  "maximally  h e t e r o g e n e o u s teams", I f o l l o w e d s t e p s o u t l i n e d by O l s e n Kagan  (19 92, p . 1 1 ) .  I ranked  t h e marks i n o r d e r from  h i g h e s t t o t h e l o w e s t and a s s i g n e d t h e b e s t s t u d e n t , w e a k e s t s t u d e n t and group. second and  The  second  t h e two  middle  g r o u p was  students to the  f o r m e d by t h e s t u d e n t  h i g h e s t mark, t h e s t u d e n t w i t h t h e s e c o n d  t h e two  s t u d e n t s w i t h marks i n t h e m i d d l e  rankings.  The  four remaining  together.  For the r e s t of the semester,  the the  first with  lowest  of  the  s t u d e n t s were g r o u p e d t h e s e new  and  peer  mark  77 response  groups had t h e t a s k o f e v a l u a t i n g each  other's  writing. Changing the composition very l i t t l e  effect  o f t h e groups appeared t o have  on t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e t a s k .  Indeed,  many s t u d e n t s commented, a s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f i n d i n g s , "comfortable" in the class  t h e new g r o u p s f e l t had n o t changed.  cohesive unit,  interesting  Data  a n d how t h e " a t m o s p h e r e "  Since the class  was a  p e r h a p s t h e s t u d e n t s knew e a c h o t h e r  enough t h a t w o r k i n g than  how  well  w i t h new g r o u p members was more  i t was t h r e a t e n i n g .  Collection  To c o l l e c t d a t a f o r t h i s s t u d y , strategies.  First,  I kept  a journal  personal observations of classroom behaviour.  My j o u r n a l  particular  situations,  I e m p l o y e d a number o f i n which I wrote  activities  contains questions  c l a s s e s a n d my e m o t i o n a l addition,  and s t u d e n t s '  I had about  a record of conversations  s t u d e n t s , r e f l e c t i o n s u p o n my p r a c t i c e , journey through  my  with  p l a n s f o r upcoming the study.  In  I t r i e d t o r e l a t e my r e a d i n g t o t h e s t u d y a n d t o  t h e s i t u a t i o n a s i t was r e v e a l i n g  itself  i n the classroom.  78 Time t o w r i t e I was  not  i n my  j o u r n a l was  always f a i t h f u l .  a t t i m e s g a v e me  the  w r i t i n g the should time"  journal  " h e l p one (Elliott,  The  always easy to f i n d ,  Brief interludes during  opportunity  e n t r i e s were w r i t t e n ,  not  t o make n o t e s .  however, at the  end  of  1991,  what i t was  the  requested that initial in  reactions  t h e i r group.  the at  c l a s s a l s o kept j o u r n a l s  A f t e r the the  In journal the  p.77).  s t u d e n t s i n the  their lives.  day.  like  t o r e f l e c t upon c l a s s r o o m l e a r n i n g o r e v e n t s of in  class,  Most  I t r i e d t o keep i n mind t h a t  to reconstruct  first  i n which  significance  peer review session,  students recount i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s to the  p r o c e s s as  This journal  t h e y had  entry  was  Because of the  assignments, the  first  b e g i n n i n g of  c l a s s , the  and  the  final  the  entry  Additional c o l l e c t e d and included  timing  j o u r n a l was  close  I their  experienced i t  collected  and  p h o t o c o p i e d as w e r e s i m i l a r e n t r i e s a f t e r e s s a y t h r e e essay four.  and  and  of these major w r i t i n g w r i t t e n near  the  second at a p p r o x i m a t e l y mid-term  to the  end  documents r e l e v a n t  of the  t o the  semester.  s t u d y were  p h o t o c o p i e d f o r a n a l y s i s . These documents  d r a f t s and  f i n a l versions  of the  fourth essay  the  79 students wrote d u r i n g the term of the study.  T h i s e s s a y was  s e l e c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s because by t h i s t i m e , s t u d e n t s were f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e p r o c e s s a n d no l o n g e r nervous and embarrassed  about  s h a r i n g t h e i r work.  This  e s s a y was n o t t h e l a s t one r e q u i r e d o f t h e s t u d e n t s a n d consequently,  I felt  t h e assignment, u n l i k e a  assignment, would s t i l l attention.  final  command t h e s t u d e n t s ' f u l l  I t h a s b e e n my e x p e r i e n c e t h a t , g i v e n t h e  p r e s s u r e s o f i m m i n e n t e x a m i n a t i o n s a n d t h e f a c t t h a t many teachers a s s i g n s u b s t a n t i a l end-of-term assignments, a t t e n t i o n t o ESL w r i t i n g a s s i g n m e n t s i s s o m e t i m e s p e r f u n c t o r y b y t h e l a s t week o r s o o f c l a s s .  As w e l l as t h e  essays, notes taken during the f o u r t h peer response  session  were c o l l e c t e d and c o p i e d .  F i n a l l y t h e f o u r t h p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n was a u d i o t a p e d by p l a c i n g a t a p e r e c o r d e r w i t h each g r o u p .  These t a p e s  were t r a n s c r i b e d and t h e t r a n s c r i p t s c h e c k e d f o r a c c u r a c y . The  e n t i r e p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n was t a p e d a l t h o u g h I  i n s t r u c t e d students t o tape only the f i r s t  reading of the  essay under d i s c u s s i o n along w i t h the r e s u l t i n g session. the  tape.  feedback  The s e c o n d r e a d i n g o f e a c h e s s a y i s o m i t t e d f r o m  80 Together the v a r i o u s data, accurate i n my  p i c t u r e o f t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n as i t  context  w i t h my  A n a l y s i s of the As  I h o p e d , w o u l d g i v e me  final  r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s and  students.  collected for analysis consisted v e r s i o n s from the  Throughout the  Perceptions the-students' I turned  (1992).  to the j o u r n a l e n t r i e s .  First  holistically  mixed or negative  To  determine sessions,  I r e a d and  r a t e d the e n t r y  as d e s c r i b e d  re-read as  i n Manglesdorf  whose j o u r n a l i s c a t e g o r i z e d as p o s i t i v e So,  f o r example,  j o u r n a l i s c a t e g o r i z e d as- p o s i t i v e .  entries italicized No  over the .  a t t i t u d e s towards the peer response  A student  as  semester, I too kept a j o u r n a l .  makes o n l y p o s i t i v e comments. first  sessions,  students  of Peer Response S e s s i o n s .  e a c h j o u r n a l e n t r y and positive,  the  of  f o u r t h peer  of t a p e s c r i p t s of those  w e l l as j o u r n a l e n t r i e s w r i t t e n by semester.  operated  Data  noted the data  d r a f t e s s a y s and  an  and  are presented  c o r r e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n made.)  Jaesun's  (All journal  as t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n .  81 I think the feedback a c t i v i t y in l a s t class was useful. F i r s t , i t was helpful to understand the structure of an essay. Second, we had a chance to discuss appropriate choice about vocabulary and expressions. Finally, I could r e a l i z e what I hadn't recognize in my essay and vice versa (1-#16). Nothing and  i n Jaesun's j o u r n a l h i n t s at a problem or  consequently  her j o u r n a l i s considered  A journal entry labelled p o s i t i v e and session.  positive.  "mixed" w o u l d c o n t a i n  n e g a t i v e comments a b o u t t h e p e e r  Bill's  first  concern,  j o u r n a l i s an  both  response  example.  I think that i s fun to l i s t e n to other's w r i t i n g but i t ' s kind of hard for me to read in front of the group. Maybe because I'm a shy person so i t wasn't easy to me to read i t out loud. I l i k e the feedback from my group member since they are a l l gentle. Personally I like teacher teaches thing d i r e c t l y instead lead the student puzzle and find t h e i r own way. But t h i s i s only my personal f e e l i n g on that i s what I use to learn from other courses (l-#4).  Clearly B i l l  has  some r e s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e  revision activity, use  and he  i s concerned  of t h i s s t r a t e g y i n the classroom.  i n d i c a t e he isn't  peer  about the He  does,  teacher's though,  i s e n j o y i n g h e a r i n g the work of o t h e r s  t h r e a t e n e d o r i n t i m i d a t e d by h i s c l a s s m a t e s .  journal  i s c a t e g o r i z e d as  mixed.  and This  82 To be c a t e g o r i z e d as a ' n e g a t i v e ' j o u r n a l e n t r y , a l l t h e s t u d e n t ' s comments h a d t o r e f l e c t peer response  sessions.  a negative view  Yukiko's e n t r y which  of  follows i s a  good example.  I r e a l l y didn't l i k e my essay so I didn't want to read it. After two people read t h e i r essays, i t was my turn. When the time people give me a feedback. One of my groupemate just couldn't say anything about the f i r s t impressions of my essay. I was shocked not by him but by myself who couldn't write good essay. Giving feedback for each of them i s not so easy. What makes i t hard i s that the person who read the essay can't t a l k or explain. Also, time i s l i t t l e bit short for me to have enough t a l k (l-#2).  T h i s e n t r y i n d i c a t e d the d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the f i r s t  peer response  t h i s student  s e s s i o n and t h e j o u r n a l  had  was  deemed n e g a t i v e .  Once.the j o u r n a l e n t r i e s were r a t e d o v e r a l l positive,  mixed  or n e g a t i v e , the t o t a l s  as  i n each c a t e g o r y f o r  e a c h j o u r n a l were c a l c u l a t e d and t h e n e x p r e s s e d  as  percentages.  A n a l y s i s o f S t u d e n t Comments. journal entries holistically  After categorizing  the  as d e s c r i b e d , I r e t u r n e d t o t h e  j o u r n a l s t o e x a m i n e t h e comments made b y t h e s t u d e n t s . an  iterative  f a s h i o n t h e e n t r i e s w e r e r e a d and  d e t e r m i n e what s t u d e n t s  In  re-read  d i s c e r n e d as b e n e f i t s o f t h e  to  peer  r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s and what i s s u e s c o n c e r n e d them.  First,  t h e r e w e r e comments r e g a r d i n g t h e way  t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s were s t r u c t u r e d . one  of the  classroom  that students  read t h e i r essays  S t u d e n t comments a b o u t t h i s a s p e c t p o s i t i v e as was to my  For  f e a t u r e s o f t h i s a c t i v i t y a s i t was was  Jaesun's,  listening skills"  "Our  process  say  because  of  second focus of student  Yukiko, of the  can  revise  might  comments was  of the  don't  task.  understand (3-#12).  A  feedback r e c e i v e d o p i n i o n s about i t s  f o r example, s t a t e s a b e n e f i t f o r her  clear my  be  i t s d e f i c i e n c i e s were numerous.  f e e d b a c k she  what i s not  my  is beneficial  t h e i r pronunciation"  during peer response sessions; students' u s e f u l n e s s and  in  S t u d e n t comments m i g h t  F o r e x a m p l e , K y o k o s t a t e d , "T sometimes they  s e t up aloud.  a l s o deal w i t h concerns regarding t h i s aspect  what  example,  of the process  group  (3-#16).  i n which  receives.  and  essay  "My  group  what i s a weakness  in better  ways"  i n terms  members point of my  (3-#2).  essay On  the  out so  I  other  84 hand, i n R i y o k o ' s f i r s t c o n c e r n t h a t she w i l l  A third  j o u r n a l e n t r y , she e x p r e s s e s h e r  "give  them useless  feedback"  f o c u s o f comment i n t h e j o u r n a l s ,  evident through a n a l y s i s .  (l-#3).  became  Students had noted an i n c r e a s e d  awareness o f t h e i r w r i t i n g and i t s e f f e c t on o t h e r s . b e l i e v e d t h e y h a d l e a r n e d ways i n w h i c h t o i m p r o v e writing.  To i l l u s t r a t e  their  t h e s e p e r c e i v e d g a i n s , S a t a k o made a  comment i n one o f h e r j o u r n a l s a b o u t comprehensible  They  h e r peers' essays as  - a n d c o m p r e h e n d e d i n p u t (Gass a n d S e l i n k e r ,  1994) .  In l a s t semester I didn't have chance to read my classmates' writing. I can see a l o t of a r t i c l e of magazine or newspaper but these are too d i f f i c u l t to use for my writing. I found some good sentences in my classmates' w r i t i n g and I can use i t next time (l-#8).  Finally, journals, response  through a n a l y s i s of the content of the  i t was c l e a r , sessions.  s t u d e n t s had concerns  A t l e a s t one s t u d e n t f e l t  regarding peer l i t t l e had  been g a i n e d o r even n o t h i n g as a r e s u l t o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the  sessions.  85 A n a l y s i s o f Changes i n S t u d e n t s ' P e r c e p t i o n s . determine whether  s t u d e n t p r e f e r e n c e s changed  To  over the  s e m e s t e r a s s t u d e n t s became more f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p e e r response sessions,  I compiled the three journal e n t r i e s f o r  each o f four s t u d e n t s :  Kyoko,  Naomi, Y u k i k o a n d T e r u m i .  These s t u d e n t s were s e l e c t e d because  I felt  their  views  r e g a r d i n g p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f those h e l d by t h e c l a s s as a whole.  Yukiko a t t h e end o f  t h e s e m e s t e r h a d made i t c l e a r t o me t h a t s h e h a d p o s i t i v e v i e w s o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s w h i l e Naomi h e l d  somewhat  negative views.  felt,  mixed  Kyoko and Terumi,  I intuitively  i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards t h e s e s s i o n s .  Each  s t u d e n t ' s j o u r n a l s w e r e c o m p i l e d a n d comments w e r e f o r any changes  were  examined  i n a t t i t u d e t h a t m i g h t be d i s c e r n i b l e .  Peer Response I n t e r a c t i o n .  To d i s c o v e r what s t u d e n t s  a c t u a l l y do d u r i n g p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s ,  I transcribed the  t a p e s made o f t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s i n w h i c h s t u d e n t s p r e s e n t e d t h e i r f o u r t h e s s a y s , w h i c h w e r e b a s e d o n t h e theme of Economics. in detail"  The t a p e s c r i p t s w e r e e x a m i n e d  (Silverman,  conducted by V i l l a m i l  " r e p e a t e d l y and  1 9 9 3 , p.117) i n t h e l i g h t o f r e s e a r c h a n d De G u e r r e r o  (1996) .  86 Because  I was  i n t e r e s t e d i n the peer response  session  and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e n g a g e d i n b y t h e s t u d e n t s , t h e w h o l e t a p e s c r i p t of a group's analysis. the  session c o n s t i t u t e d the u n i t  of  I c a r e f u l l y reviewed the t a p e s c r i p t s f o r each of  t h r e e response groups  for activities,  strategies  a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r p r e s e n t e d by V i l l a m i l G u e r r e r o a n d d e f i n e d as  and  and  De  follows:  Social-Cognitive Activities: a c t i v i t i e s displayed during p e e r i n t e r a c t i o n w h i c h w e r e t h o u g h t t o be t h e b a s i s f o r cognitive processes related to r e v i s i o n . Mediating Strategies: s e m i o t i c a l l y encoded a c t i o n s w h i c h f a c i l i t a t e d the achievement of t a s k g o a l s , t h a t i s , revising text. S i g n i f i c a n t Aspects of S o c i a l Behaviour: salient b e h a v i o u r a l i s s u e s t h a t i n d i c a t e d how p e e r s h a n d l e d t h e i r mutual i n t e r a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g the t e x t (p.56).  In  my  study I determined which of the  strategies, the  and a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r were e v i d e n t i n  t r a n s c r i p t s o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s c o n d u c t e d i n my  classroom. students,  Because  of the s t r u c t u r e of the task I set  my  I expected that categories o c c u r r i n g i n the  r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d by V i l l a m i l for  activities,  and De G u e r r e r o  t h e most p a r t , be a p p l i c a b l e t o my  study.  (1996)  would,  87 E f f e c t s o f Peer Response on R e v i s i o n . of  Using the drafts  t h e essays presented t o the peer response groups, the  tapescripts  o f t h e groups' i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e r e v i s e d  essays,  I d e t e r m i n e d what s u g g e s t i o n s w e r e u s e d b y t h e  writers  to revise their drafts.  the  final  employed.  Comparing t h e d r a f t s and  c o p i e s i l l u m i n e d how t h e s u g g e s t i o n s h a d b e e n Examining the t a p e s c r i p t s  along with the f i n a l  v e r s i o n s o f t h e e s s a y s i n d i c a t e d w h i c h s u g g e s t i o n s were ignored.  Finally,  I n o t e d t h o s e r e v i s i o n s made w h i c h h a d  not been suggested by t h e response  groups.  T h i s a n a l y s i s g a v e me a c o m p r e h e n s i v e activities sessions,  that  took place during the peer  look at the response  t h e impact those a c t i v i t i e s had on t h e r e v i s i o n s  s t u d e n t s made t o t h e i r w r i t i n g , a n d t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e students w i t h regard t o the peer response  sessions.  CHAPTER FOUR  R e s u l t s of the Study  T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t were upon a t h o r o u g h  analysis of the data.  collected  Because t h i s study i  a small s c a l e e x p l o r a t o r y study of classroom p r a c t i c e ,  the  r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y a r e more a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e f e r r e d t o a s o b s e r v a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n as  O b s e r v a t i o n 1;  findings.  Students' p e r c e p t i o n s of peer  response  s e s s i o n s v a r i e d from student to student.  Students'  j o u r n a l e n t r i e s were r e a d and r e r e a d and  r a t e d o v e r a l l as p o s i t i v e , mixed o r n e g a t i v e .  The number  j o u r n a l e n t r i e s i n e a c h c a t e g o r y was t o t a l e d a n d expressed  as a percentage.  o  then  R e s u l t s a r e shown i n T a b l e  4.1.  89 Table  4.1  H o l i s t i c Ratings of Journal  Entries  Journal  Positive  Mixed  Negative  1.  (n=12)  6  4  (33 3%)  2  (16.6%)  2.  (n=ll)  3  (27.2%)  7  (63 6%)  1  (9%)  3.  (n=9)  4  (44.4%)  5  (55 5%)  0  (0%)  In the f i r s t  (50%)  journal entry, the largest percentage of  students expressed p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards the peer response sessions.  The n e x t l a r g e s t g r o u p c o n s i s t e d o f  s t u d e n t s who a p p r e c i a t e d t h e b e n e f i t s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s b u t who a l s o f o u n d t h e y e x p e r i e n c e d some c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e o f p e e r r e s p o n s e Two s t u d e n t s (16.6%) were b e n e f i c i a l  sessions.  d i d not f e e l the peer response  groups  t o them.  For t h e second j o u r n a l ,  r e s u l t s were q u i t e  different.  T h i s t i m e , b y f a r t h e m a j o r i t y o f j o u r n a l e n t r i e s was as m i x e d  - 63.6%.  H a v i n g h a d more e x p e r i e n c e w i t h  rated  sharing  w r i t i n g w i t h p e e r s , s t u d e n t s w e r e a p p a r e n t l y more c o g n i z a n t o f some o f t h e p r o b l e m s  associated with these peer  response  90 s e s s i o n s a s t h e y were u s e d i n t h i s c o n t e x t .  Interestingly  enough, however, t h i s t i m e ,  journal entry  was  deemed n e g a t i v e .  the  students  negative  o n l y one s t u d e n t  Presumably, w i t h f a m i l i a r i t y ,  one o f  whose j o u r n a l was f o r m e r l y c a t e g o r i z e d a s  h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h e r e w e r e some b e n e f i t s t o t h e  process.  By  the end o f the semester, the p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e  students  h a d a p p a r e n t l y c h a n g e d a g a i n . T h e y became more  balanced  b e t w e e n p o s i t i v e and  l a r g e r percentage, o f student No  mixed a t t i t u d e s w i t h j o u r n a l s i n the mixed  one wrote a t h i r d j o u r n a l o f e n t i r e l y n e g a t i v e  I t appears t h a t the student journal  i n the middle  who h a d w r i t t e n t h e  category. comments.  negative  o f t h e s e m e s t e r b e g a n t o s e e some  benefits t oparticipating  O b s e r v a t i o n 2:  the  i n peer response s e s s i o n s .  Students' p e r c e p t i o n s of peer  response  s e s s i o n s changed over the course of the semester.  Individual student's perceptions  j o u r n a l s i n d i c a t e d changes i n  towards peer response s e s s i o n s over  of the semester.  the  These changes i n p e r c e p t i o n a r e  i l l u s t r a t e d by examining the j o u r n a l e n t r i e s .  length  best  91 T e r u m i ' s e n t r i e s t y p i f i e d t h e way p e r c e p t i o n s Her  t h r e e j o u r n a l s documented t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n h e r  a t t i t u d e towards peer response comments w e r e m i x e d . very  helpful  points  She n o t e d ,  to me because  or good points  sessions. "working  the other  in my essay" .  I n i t i a l l y , her as a group  students  told  In this  first  however, she a l s o p o i n t e d out t h e d i f f i c u l t y she  changed.  had " t o t e l l  was  me my  bad  journal,  s h e h a d when  t h e o t h e r s t u d e n t s my comments".  T e r u m i ' s s e c o n d j o u r n a l was r a t e d a s p o s i t i v e . second j o u r n a l r e p o r t e d the process  of the peer  This  response  s e s s i o n s a n d r e i t e r a t e d t h e comment made i n j o u r n a l o n e :  This way i s e f f e c t i v e for us to progress my w r i t i n g s k i l l because the l i s t e n e r s give us t h e i r opinions that I didn't notice at a l l and also I can add the good opinions to my essay (2-#15).  The  focus i n t h i s  the peer response  In and  s e c o n d j o u r n a l was o n p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s o f sessions.  h e r t h i r d j o u r n a l e n t r y , Terumi had both  n e g a t i v e comments; c o n s e q u e n t l y ,  a g a i n deemed m i x e d .  Although  h e r j o u r n a l was o n c e  Terumi i n t h i s  again mentioned that her classmates  positive  "give  final journal  me my good  points,  92 so  I can recognize  how I can write  essay  in a good  way",  went o n t o make t h e comment t h a t t h e l i s t e n i n g was s i n c e she had t o u n d e r s t a n d order  "helps  listening,  difficult  l o n g passages o f t e x t and i n  t o do s o h a d t o c o n c e n t r a t e .  difficulty  In spite of her  she thought t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e  [her] in a l i s t e n i n g way  process  too".  W h i l e t h e changes i n p e r c e p t i o n on Terumi's p a r t not  great  she  were  i n m a g n i t u d e , t h e t h i r d j o u r n a l i n d i c a t e d a more  t h o u g h t f u l assessment o f t h e peer response s e s s i o n s , and h e r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e t h i r d s e s s i o n was m i x e d .  More d r a m a t i c  changes were e v i d e n t  peer response sessions than her  first  negative,  and c o n s e q u e n t l y  her a b i l i t y  of other students.  h e r j o u r n a l was  t o w r i t e a good essay  holistically  and h e r embarrassment a t  t o r e a d h e r work t o h e r c l a s s m a t e s .  Additional  j o u r n a l h a d t o do w i t h how  was t o g i v e f e e d b a c k t o h e r c l a s s m a t e s  writing.  In  She r e v e a l e d h e r l a c k o f c o n f i d e n c e i n  concerns i n her f i r s t it  views of  j o u r n a l e n t r y , a l l t h e comments s h e made w e r e  r a t e d as n e g a t i v e .  having  i n those  i n Yukiko's  about  difficult their  93 In  h e r second j o u r n a l ,  r a t e d m i x e d , Y u k i k o was  still  nervous about r e a d i n g i n f r o n t o f h e r c l a s s , b u t she f o c u s e d more o n t h e h e l p f u l  aspects of the process.  She s t a t e d :  The reason why I think i t ' s helpful are easy to find your weakness in my essay, good practice for speak out, and can develop my hearing s k i l l s (2-#2).  By t h e t h i r d j o u r n a l e n t r y , w h i c h was r a t e d  positive,  Y u k i k o ' s e n t h u s i a s m f o r t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s was c l e a r l y evident.  She n o t e d t h a t s h e f i x e d h e r e s s a y u s i n g  h e r g r o u p members' a d v i c e a n d b e l i e v e d h e r "speaking l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s have work".  Her f i n a l  improved  since  we started  comment r e f l e c t e d h e r c h a n g e d  and  doing  this  attitude.  People in my group including me don't hesitate to say both p o s i t i v e and negative parts so we a l l can be encouraged and know what i s wrong with our essays. I think I am, or we are a l l helping with our essays ( 3 #2) .  O v e r t h i s s e m e s t e r , Y u k i k o became i n c r e a s i n g l y more c o n f i d e n t about p a r t i c i p a t i n g  i n peer response s e s s i o n s and  more p o s i t i v e a b o u t t h e b e n e f i t s o f s u c h  Most s t u d e n t s d i d n o t undergo  sessions.  as d r a m a t i c n o r as  e v i d e n t a change i n p e r c e p t i o n as Y u k i k o .  A number o f  94 students wrote i n i t i a l  j o u r n a l s and f i n a l  journals rated  mixed but had second j o u r n a l e n t r i e s e v a l u a t e d as p o s i t i v e as i s Terumi's  second j o u r n a l ,  either  o r n e g a t i v e as i s  t h e c a s e w i t h Naomi's second j o u r n a l e n t r y . wrote p o s i t i v e . i n i t i a l  Other students  e v a l u a t i o n s of the peer  response  p r o c e s s and t h e n w r o t e f u r t h e r j o u r n a l e n t r i e s r a t e d as m i x e d .  T h e s e s t u d e n t s became aware,  as  overall  apparently, of  c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g p e e r response s e s s i o n s once t h e y had  some  e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e s e s s i o n s and made t h o s e c l e a r i n t h e i r s e c o n d and t h i r d j o u r n a l  O b s e r v a t i o n 3;  entries.  Students saw  the b e n e f i t s  model of peer response s e s s i o n s but c e r t a i n aspects as  had  of Elbow's (1973) concerns about  well.  The m o d e l o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s u s e d f o r t h i s i s b a s e d on Elbow's  (1973) w r i t i n g g r o u p s .  In t h i s  students read t h e i r essays aloud while t h e i r peers  study  model, listened  and t o o k n o t e s i n o r d e r t o r e s p o n d t o t h e a u t h o r s ' t e x t s . Feedback,  t h e n , was  oral;  a u t h o r s were n o t a l l o w e d t o  o v e r t h e i r w r i t i n g n o r d e f e n d t h e i r work.  They s i m p l y  l i s t e n e d a n d t o o k n o t e s o f t h e i r p e e r s ' comments o n  argue  95 strengths, meaning.  s u g g e s t i o n s f o r i m p r o v e m e n t and q u e r i e s r e g a r d i n g Aspects  of the peer  response  beneficial  yet posed concerns  oral/aural  n a t u r e o f t h e t a s k , and  The  O r a l / A u r a l Nature  f o r s t u d e n t s were  which  s k i l l s improved  the peer  response  were  the  the s h a r i n g of  of the Task.  s t u d e n t s commented on t h e f a c t listening  sessions which  essays.  A number o f  that they f e l t  their  as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e way  s e s s i o n s were s t r u c t u r e d .  in  Students  n e e d e d t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e t e x t b e i n g r e a d i n o r d e r " c a t c h the Speaking  thesis"  skills  and  improved  " i n order  to give  good  feedback".  i n the o p i n i o n of at l e a s t  student because of the n e c e s s i t y t o g i v e feedback classmates  orally.  The  one  to  main b e n e f i t s p e r c e i v e d by  the  s t u d e n t s , however, d e r i v e d from the r e a d i n g a l o u d . comments b y s t u d e n t s e x p r e s s e d essays  helped t h e i r peers  recognize  "something  Concerns r e g a r d i n g the o r a l / a u r a l ranged  from c o m p l a i n t s about f i n d i n g  understand  Numerous  the i d e a t h a t r e a d i n g  a l o u d h e l p e d them t o f i n d m i s t a k e s  to  their  on t h e i r own,  and  unnatural".  aspect of the i t difficult  process  to  the p r o n u n c i a t i o n of o t h e r s i n the group t o  96 finding  i t difficult  t o f u l l y comprehend t h e meaning o f a  l o n g p i e c e o f t e x t w i t h o u t a w r i t t e n copy. complained,  interestingly  t h r e e Japanese  One s t u d e n t  enough, t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e were  s t u d e n t s i n h e r group  i t was t o o e a s y f o r  t h e m t o u n d e r s t a n d one a n o t h e r , a n d t h e y a l l made "the same mistakes  and couldn't  find  i t " . Another  student i n her  j o u r n a l was adamant t h a t h e r l i s t e n i n g a n d s p e a k i n g had n o t improved response  of participation  Almost  a l l of the students enjoyed  t o t h e essays w r i t t e n by t h e i r  a p p r e c i a t e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o "find using  d i f f e r e n t words",  expressions. and  i n peer  sessions.  Sharing Essays. listening  as a r e s u l t  skills  out how others  They are  and t o d i s c u s s those words and  T h e y f o u n d i t "helps  " t o compare  classmates.  d i f f e r e n t approaches  to hear  others'  to the same  ideas" topic".  Some s t u d e n t s s t a t e d t h a t t h e y p a i d a t t e n t i o n t o s t r u c t u r e and n o t e d  "good sentences".  One p a r t i c u l a r l y  insightful  comment s u g g e s t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s f o u n d t h e i r p e e r s '  writing  u s e f u l m o d e l s f o r t h e i r own work.  In l a s t semester I didn't have chance to read my classmate's writing. I can see a l o t of a r t i c l e of magazine or newspaper but these are too d i f f i c u l t for  97 my writing. classmates'  Concerns  I found some good sentences in my w r i t i n g and I can use i t next time  (l-#8).  r e g a r d i n g t h e p r a c t i c e of s h a r i n g e s s a y s were  e v i n c e d i n two  comments b o t h made b y R i y o k o .  These  concerns  n e e d t o be c o n s i d e r e d when a s s e s s i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s s h a r i n g w r i t i n g i n peer response sessions. first  journal  of  Riyoko i n her  wrote:  To t e l l the truth, I was getting confused as we discussed about our essay. Because our s t y l e of essay was d i f f e r e n t . One of our group wrote about a kind of story that she had experienced with him whom she described. But mine i s t o t a l l y just a description with some example (1-#3).  Finally,  Riyoko's d i s t r e s s w i t h the s h a r i n g of  i n p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s was third  journal,  "Mostly,  when I l i s t e n others".  I'm  essays  e v i d e n t i n a comment f r o m  disappointed  at mine  [my  F o r h e r , t h e s e s e s s i o n s were a  her  essay] mixed  experience at best.  Working  Together.  W h i l e e a c h o f t h e two p r e v i o u s  a s p e c t s o f t h e t a s k r e s u l t e d i n b o t h g a i n s and c o n c e r n s f o r s t u d e n t s , t h e r e w e r e no c o n c e r n s a r t i c u l a t e d w i t h r e g a r d t o working w i t h classmates to accomplish the t a s k set f o r the  98 group.  S e v e r a l comments were made, h o w e v e r , r e g a r d i n g g a i n s  s t u d e n t s r e c o g n i z e d as a r e s u l t o f g r o u p w o r k . s t u d e n t s r e f l e c t e d on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y f e l t w i t h t h e members o f t h e i r p e e r g r o u p s ,  how  to say  t h e i r essay  In addition,  someone or  politely  that  t h i s i s right  and  t o "respect  group  mid-term  she/he  need  t h i s i s wrong". Students member's  lazy.  Indeed,  indirect  No  one  in  Her  were a l s o aware writing".  directed  deemed a p a t h e t i c o r  c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f t h e commitment o f  the students to the peer response j o u r n a l e n t r y of A p r i l  was  "learned  some changes  T h e r e w e r e no n e g a t i v e comments f r o m s t u d e n t s at t h e i r f e l l o w classmates.  the  S u k j i v a n w r o t e t h a t she  comments w e r e e c h o e d b y o t h e r s . t h a t t h e y had  comfortable  even a f t e r  c o m p o s i t i o n of the groups changed f o l l o w i n g examinations.  A number o f  1,  1997.  p r o c e s s was I wrote the  revealed i n  my  following:  My sense i s that these students are working harder than others have and the work i s sustained. Nobody seems to be slacking off. Attendance i s good. No one has come without his/her essay done and students comment on how "comfortable" they are in groups - even the new groups (01-04-TJ).  99 O b s e r v a t i o n 4; peer  Students had problems w i t h the concept of  feedback.  'Feedback' i s d e f i n e d a s " r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p r o c e s s w h e r e b y t h e s e n d e r o f a message o b t a i n s a r e a c t i o n f r o m t h e r e c e i v e r w h i c h e n a b l e s a c h e c k t o be made o n t h e e f f i c i e n c y of  t h ecommunication"  (Crystal,  1991, p.134).  b y g r o u p members d u r i n g p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s  Comments made enable  w r i t e r s t o a s s e s s how e f f e c t i v e l y t h e e s s a y s c a r r y message.  their  W h i l e s t u d e n t s d i d make some a p p r e c i a t i v e  s t a t e m e n t s about t h e feedback from t h e i r p e e r s , t h e y had problems w i t h s e v e r a l a s p e c t s o f p e e r  The  first  feedback.  b e n e f i t m e n t i o n e d b y s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s was t h e  o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l o r e what p e e r g r o u p members u n d e r s t a n d , a n d how t h e y f e l t " presented. peers' the  A number o f s t u d e n t s m e n t i o n e d m a k i n g u s e o f in better  same t i m e r e s e r v i n g t h e r i g h t t o r e j e c t  It  "could  i n regard t o the essays  comments t o " r e v i s e essays  do n o t a g r e e  still  ways" w h i l e a t suggestions they  with.  was e v i d e n t , h o w e v e r , f r o m t h e j o u r n a l e n t r i e s  that  some s t u d e n t s h a d d i f f i c u l t y a c c e p t i n g t h e i d e a o f a c t u a l l y giving  feedback t o t h e i r peers.  Several times i n t h e  10 journals,  students expressed  R i y o k o was  w o r r i e d about  w h i l e Naomi f e l t about  t h e i r essays  feeling  "giving  them useless  she d i d n ' t "know how [since]  some o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o g i v i n g and  so.  properly  sound  c l a s s m a t e s and  t o do  feedback"  to advice  t h e i r essays  W o r r i e s about c r i t i c i z i n g pervaded  inadequate  perfect".  their  work  receiving  feedback.  I t ' s very d i f f i c u l t to give right suggestions about something negative. Also sometimes i t i s very hard t e l l the person who wrote the essay negative things frankly because I don't want to hurt his or her f e e l i n g s (2-#16).  The  quote  a b o v e s u m m a r i z e s t h e most common s e n t i m e n t s  e x p r e s s e d b y t h e s t u d e n t s on t h e i s s u e o f g i v i n g feedback.  One  to  s t u d e n t , h o w e v e r , was  the l a c k of n e g a t i v e feedback  i n her  negative  c l e a r l y w o r r i e d about group.  I do not think that to t e l l good point i s not helpful but do think to t e l l bad points i s very helpful to my writing. Just to say ' J l i k e your essay, ' or ^Your essay i s good,' i s easy and make our r e l a t i o n s h i p better, but what we need now i s point out or discuss bad points more to improve our essay (3-#8).  101 The i s s u e o f p e e r v e r s u s t e a c h e r f e e d b a c k was d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d b y two s t u d e n t s .  They r e f l e c t e d o n t h e i r  p r e f e r e n c e s f o r teacher feedback.  Personally, instead way  lead  One s t u d e n t  I like  teacher  teaches  the student  puzzle  around  thing and find  stated:  directly their  own  (l-#4) .  Clearly this  s t u d e n t was a n x i o u s f o r t h e t e a c h e r i n  p a r t i c u l a r t o comment o n h i s w o r k .  As p r e v i o u s l y noted, p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n the peer  response  s e s s i o n s s t a t e d t h a t sometimes t h e y used t h e feedback  given  b u t made t h e c h o i c e o f what t o a c c e p t a n d what t o r e j e c t themselves. "some opinions misunderstand  One s t u d e n t d e s c r i b e d f e e l i n g i r r i t a t e d are wide  of the mark,  what I want  that  to say in my  when  i s someone i s  essay".  The s t u d e n t s e x p r e s s e d t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r peer feedback b u t had concerns about t h e u s e f u l n e s s of feedback  from peers.  102  O b s e r v a t i o n 5;  Students engaged i n f i v e  sociocognitive  activities: 1.  Reading  2.  Evaluating  3.  P o i n t i n g to  4.  Writing  5.  Discussing  troublesources  comments task procedures  S o c i o c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s are the a c t i v i t i e s which e n a b l e s t u d e n t s t o become aware o f d e f i c i e n c i e s t e x t and,  i n turn,  Guerrero,  1996).  t o make r e v i s i o n s  in their  ( V i l l a m i l & De  Sociocognitive A c t i v i t i e s  Reading.  The p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s i n t h i s  s t r u c t u r e d s o t h a t g r o u p members e a c h r e a d t h e i r aloud to the others. the  T h i s a c t i v i t y was  peer response session.  listeners  s t u d y were essays  the i n i t i a l  A f t e r the f i r s t  reading,  i n the group took s e v e r a l minutes t o w r i t e  s e n t e n c e o r two s u m m a r i z i n g t h e i r g e n e r a l  step i n the a  impression of the  103 essay  and r e l a t i n g t h e impression  to the writer.  second reading f o l l o w e d w h i l e students  made n o t e s  Then, a t o remind  t h e m o f more d e t a i l e d comments t h e y w a n t e d t o make t o t h e writer.  In l i s t e n i n g tapes,  t o w r i t e r s read t h e i r t e x t s a l o u d on t h e  I identified  De G u e r r e r o  s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s o f what V i l l a m i l a n d  (1996) c a l l  " s e l f r e s p o n s e r e v i s i o n s . . . comments  o r a s i d e s made b y t h e w r i t e r a s h e / s h e r e a d t h e t e x t (p.57).  First,  S u k j i v a n i n t h e midst  s t u m b l e d "a p o w e r f u l , right,  [ a s i d e ] oh no, t h i s  i s not  t o o , a s he was r e a d i n g t h e t e x t he h a d w r i t t e n ,  a n d i n t e r j e c t e d i n d i c a t i n g he was a w a r e o f a  problem, s t a t i n g  " t h e r e , t h e y may n o t u s i n g c a s h  w h a t ? " a n d he c o n t i n u e s , a f t e r the year  Finally, comment  of her reading  s o m e t h i n g ' s wrong."  Bill, stopped  a power,  aloud"  2,000  " s i n c e t h e r e may n o t u s i n g  [aside]  " I t ' s boring right?"  part of the listeners,  cash  'oh', 'ah'".  G r a c e , a s s h e was r e a d i n g ,  t h a t G r a c e was r e s p o n d i n g  [aside]  interjected the  as an a s i d e .  t o non-verbal  I t was p o s s i b l e  r e s p o n s e s on t h e  b u t t h e comment c o u l d e q u a l l y h a v e  104 been prompted  b y h e r own a w a r e n e s s  of the uninspiring nature  of t h e essay.  Interestingly,  t h e r e w e r e a number o f comments i n t h e  j o u r n a l s about t h e b e n e f i t s o f r e a d i n g a l o u d , about d i s t a n c i n g themselves from t h e w r i t i n g .  Satoko  commented,  "While I read my essay c a r e f u l l y so that the l i s t e n e r can understand e a s i l y , I find some grammar mistakes or wrong sentences" (2 - #8) .  Sun e c h o e d  this  remark,  " A f t e r f i n i s h i n g reading my essay, I could find mistakes from i t which I didn't r e a l i z e before" #1) .  The  l o t s of (1 -  r e a d i n g c l e a r l y e n a b l e d s t u d e n t s t o become a w a r e  deficiencies  i n their  Evaluating.  work.  I n the peer response sessions, students  made g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s e v a l u a t i n g t h e w r i t i n g , a f t e r they had l i s t e n e d t o t h e f i r s t v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g " was a t y p i c a l  y o u r i n t r o d u c t i o n v e r y much.  generally  r e a d i n g " Y o u r e s s a y was  comment.  e v a l u a t i o n s f o l l o w e d t h e second r e a d i n g ,  the audience".  of  More  detailed  such as " I l i k e  I think the introduction  grab  Statements o f e v a l u a t i o n d i d not imply t h a t  105 r e v i s i o n would take p l a c e , i n p a r t because e v a l u a t i v e statements  d i r e c t e d toward  peers  i n t h i s s t u d y w e r e most  Pointing to Troublesources.  Problems r e c o g n i z e d by  often of a p o s i t i v e  s t u d e n t s were c a l l e d Guerrero,  1996).  nature.  "troublesources" (Villamil  & De  These t r o u b l e s o u r c e s were a r e a s o f  c o n f u s i o n t h e s t u d e n t s i d e n t i f i e d w h i l e t h e y were to the essays being read. words which  Troublesources might i n c l u d e  students d i d not understand,  (real or perceived)  grammar p r o b l e m s  or inconsistencies i n the text.  example, Chie s a i d t o Riyoko d i d you say, something card?".  listening  "I'm n o t s u r e l a s t  For  paragraph  about n e g a t i v e t h i n g about  credit  T h i s was a t r o u b l e s o u r c e f o r C h i e b e c a u s e  Riyoko's  e s s a y was a b o u t t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f c r e d i t c a r d s a n d consequently  t h e n e g a t i v e comment c o n f u s e d  W r i t i n g comments. the peer  response  Chie.  As p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , s t u d e n t s i n  g r o u p s made n o t e s  as t h e y l i s t e n e d t o  e s s a y s o f t h r e e f e a t u r e s : p o i n t s t h e y f e l t were good; i d e a s , phrases  t h a t " d i d n ' t work"; and, c o n f u s i n g p a s s a g e s .  n o t e s were i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e n t e n c e listeners'  first  These  o r two s t a t i n g t h e  impressions of the text being  presented.  106 Authors  t o o , were r e q u i r e d t o t a k e n o t e s o f t h e  comments  made b y t h e o t h e r s i n t h e i r g r o u p , comments w h i c h t h e i r essays.  applied to  T h e s e comments c o u l d t h e n be r e v i e w e d  r e v i s i o n t o t h e e s s a y - w a s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d and i n t h e t e x t c o u l d be  when  deficiencies  remedied.  Discussing task procedures.  T h e r e w e r e few  instances  of the students d i s c u s s i n g task procedures  on  tapescript.  talk included  brief  Examples of t h i s type of peer  statements,  "finished",  "so... g e n e r a l e x p r e s s i o n ? " . t a p e r e c o r d e r when J a e s u n can't  speak".  I t was  " t h a t ' s enough" T h e r e was  said  one  the  and  reference to  " I t b o t h e r s me  actually;  p o s s i b l e t h a t more o f t h i s s o r t  d i s c u s s i o n t o o k p l a c e b e f o r e t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r was on.  However, t h e g r o u p t a s k h a d  w i t h t h e i r r o l e s i n t h e p r o c e s s . The  quite  p r o c e d u r a l comments  revealed t h e i r understanding  the  commitment t o  the  familiar  and  process.  of  and  e v i d e n t i n the t a p e s h e l p e d keep s t u d e n t s o n - t a s k o f and  I  turned  a basic structure,  s t u d e n t s were by t h i s time i n the semester  the  107 Observation  6;  Students p r o v i d e d s c a f f o l d i n g i n peer  response s e s s i o n s .  The t e r m s c a f f o l d i n g  i s a metaphor f o r t h e a s s i s t a n c e  p r o v i d e d b y a t e a c h e r / a d u l t o r a more c a p a b l e p e e r t o t h e child,  o r l e s s c a p a b l e p e e r s o t h a t t h e two t o g e t h e r a r e  a b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e t a s k t h e y have been s e t (Cazden 1988) .  Scaffolding  Substrategies  Ten s u b s t r a t e g i e s providing scaffolding  (Villamil  & De G u e r r e r o , 1996) f o r  were e v i d e n t i n t h i s s t u d y .  1.  Instructing  6.  Requesting c l a r i f i c a t i o n  2.  Announcing  7.  Clarifying  3.  Justifying  8'.  Eliciting  4.  Restating  9.  Responding  5.  Giving  10 .  Reacting  directives  Instructing. illustrated "just  The s c a f f o l d i n g  to  strategy,  elicitation  instructing,  when J a e s u n r e s p o n d e d t o Y u k i k o ' s s t a t e m e n t ,  I d o n ' t know t h e w o r d m e a n i n g o f  'reputation'".  J a e s u n r e s p o n d e d w i t h more t h a n a s i m p l e d e f i n i t i o n .  She  was  108 u s e d e x a m p l e s t o make t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d a v a i l a b l e t o Yukiko.  R e p u t a t i o n means t h e s t o r e i s v e r y g o o d . Price i s very low and t h e y don't cheat customers. I t ' s good reputations. T h e y o v e r c h a r g e d p e o p l e , t h e y d o n ' t - we can't get a r e f u n d . That's bad r e p u t a t i o n (116-118: 1) . B e c a u s e o f h e r p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h , J a e s u n became t h e i n s t r u c t o r or teacher to the less p r o f i c i e n t  Announcing. response topic  sessions.  Announcing  peers.  was i n f r e q u e n t i n t h e s e  peer  One s t u d e n t , S u k j i v a n , a n n o u n c e d ,  i s t h e u s e o f money i n Canada a n d I n d i a " .  "My  T h i s was a n  o r g a n i z e r which r e f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n so t h a t t h e t a s k c o u l d continue. response  I t i s u s e d t w i c e , b o t h t i m e s i n t h e same p e e r group.  Justifying. phrase,  structure,  G i v i n g reasons  f o r the use of a p a r t i c u l a r  o r example i n t h e e s s a y , a s c a f f o l d i n g  strategy called justifying,  o c c u r r e d o n l y once i n t h i s  study.  Chie:  I [here] l i k e y o u r comparison, Korean market.  farmer's market and  Jaesun:  I j u s t t o o k . . i f I say j u s t t r a d i t i o n a l market t h e n y o u d o n ' t know what i t ' s l i k e (12 6-129; 1) .  109 Restating.  U s e d i n one o f t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e  t o i n d i c a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g was  Terumi:  I w o n d e r how paragraph  Bill:  the s t r a t e g y of  sessions  restating.  many g o o d p o i n t s y o u p u t i n one  Ah...  Terumi:  Like...  Bill:  I u s e two p o i n t i n one  Terumi:  Two p o i n t s f o r one p a r a g r a p h . I u s e two f o r one p a r a g r a p h (409-419; 2 ) .  Terumi  paragraph  r e i t e r a t e d h e r message a b o u t B i l l ' s  structure.  T h i s comment d i d c a u s e B i l l  points  paragraph  t o make r e v i s i o n  to  t h i s p a r t of h i s essay.  Giving directives. peer response session.  This strategy occurred  i n only  S u k j i v a n d i r e c t e d George t o c o r r e c t  a s p e l l i n g m i s t a k e and a grammar e r r o r i n h i s e s s a y .  The  s t r u c t u r e of the peer response s e s s i o n s l i m i t e d t h e use this substrategy  s i n c e s t u d e n t s d i d not have c o p i e s o f  peers' essays to r e f e r to.  a i r mail'.  of their  S u k j i v a n c o n s u l t e d George's  e s s a y when she c o u l d n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i f he meant v  one  'airmiles'  or  110 Requesting in  clarification.  t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n among G r a c e , B i l l  Terumi.  Grace and B i l l  having  a credit card.  Terumi's intended  the problem  t o r e s e r v e a h o t e l room  They a s k e d q u e s t i o n s  faced  without  to solicit  meaning.  Clarifying.  In the p o r t i o n of the t r a n s c r i p t ,  r e c o r d s Grace and B i l l  which  t a l k i n g t o T e r u m i , was a n e x a m p l e o f  scaffolding substrategy,  her meaning by reminding  Bill  clarifying.  Terumi  clarified  a n d G r a c e t h a t s h e was n o t  d i s c u s s i n g r e q u e s t i n g a h o t e l room i n p e r s o n w i t h o u t credit  evident  and t h e author,  d i d not understand  b y T e r u m i when s h e t r i e d  the  T h i s s u b s t r a t e g y was  c a r d , b u t r e s e r v i n g one i n a d v a n c e w i t h o u t  a  a credit  c a r d t o u s e a s a g u a r a n t e e o f payment.  Eliciting. additional  This substrategy,  an a t t e m p t t o draw o u t  i n f o r m a t i o n , was i l l u s t r a t e d  regarding Riyoko's  essay.  c a r d i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t  Jaesun queried, card.  Responding t o e l i c i t a t i o n . query, Riyoko  i n the conversation  Why?"  "You s a i d  credit  (70-71; 1 ) .  I n answer t o Jaesun's  stated,  You d o n ' t t h i n k s o ? J u s t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e u s e d i n s t e a d o f money s o t h e y c a n u s . . . C r e d i t c a r d s i n s t e a d o f money so money i s n o t most i m p o r t a n t b u t i m p o r t a n t we n e e d  Ill money b u t I t h o u g h t 75; 1) . By t h e e n d o f t h i s  I might change t h i s p a r a g r a p h  s t a t e m e n t , R i y o k o was a c k n o w l e d g i n g a  problem w i t h t h i s paragraph and a t l e a s t c o n s i d e r i n g  Reacting.  change.  An important p a r t o f the t a s k o f peer  r e s p o n s e was r e a c t i n g i n b o t h g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i f i c the  (73-  essay under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  ways t o  G e n e r a l comments s u c h a s t h e  f o l l o w i n g a r e t o be f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t t h e  tapescripts.  I l i k e your i n t r o d u c t i o n and I l i k e your essay s t y l e as a comparison between d i f f e r e n c e o f Canadian and I n d i a n . I t makes more c l e a r a n d e a s y t o u n d e r s t a n d . I like your essay (590-592-3).  O b s e r v a t i o n 7;  Students d i s p l a y e d both c o l l a b o r a t i v e  non-collaborative  Two this  behaviour.  aspects o f s o c i a l behaviour evident i n the data i n  s t u d y were c o l l a b o r a t i o n and n o n c o l l a b o r a t i o n .  Collaboration.  C o l l a b o r a t i o n o c c u r s when p e r s o n s  t o g e t h e r i n a s u p p o r t i v e manner t o a c h i e v e a m u t u a l In  t h i s response session,  eyes o f o t h e r s .  work  goal.  i n d i v i d u a l s were w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r  t o h e l p members o f t h e p e e r g r o u p s e e t h e i r w r i t i n g the  and  through  112 An  i n s t a n c e o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n was  revealed i n Jaesun's  comments.  Jaesun:  as I s a i d b e f o r e , y e a h , y o u r e s s a y i s v e r y f o c u s e d so t h r e e o f b o d y p a r a g r a p h i s v e r y c l e a r . And I w o n d e r e d y o u r t o p i c , no t h e s i s s t a t e m e n t i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n p a r a g r a p h "There i s l o t o f d i f f e r e n t media of s t r a t e g i e s t o s e l l a product t o " c o n s u m e r s " so i t ' s ummm... e m p h a s i z e d t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t o f t h e company. I mean company wanna s e l l a s many p r o d u c t s as p o s s i b l e . I t i s f o c u s e d t h a t way b u t y o u wanna s a y .  Chie:  Yeah consumers  Jaesun:  Y e a h , w i s e c o n s u m e r s s h o u l d u s e t h e k i n d o f new i n f o r m a t i o n , y e a h , a c t i v e l y , y e a h so I t h i n k yes... (277-288-1).  T h i s c o l l a b o r a t i v e w o r k on C h i e ' s itself  i n a revised thesis  Non-collaboration. students  r e s i s t working  indifferently, by  speaking  essay  later  statement.  Non-collaboration occurs t o g e t h e r e i t h e r by  behaving  t h a t may  seem t o be  aggressive.  f o l l o w i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e s the l a t t e r .  likely and  when  by d o i n g t h e minimum r e q u i r e d i n t h e g r o u p  i n a way  Grace, through  manifests  w o r d c h o i c e and  the abruptness  Bill.  The  The  student,  of her  speech  conveyed a n o n - c o l l a b o r a t i v e a t t i t u d e t o her  i n p a r t i c u l a r to  or  peers,  113 Grace:  I l i k e y o u own e x a m p l e i n i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d i n f o u r t h paragraph. I h a v e no i d e a a b o u t l a s t sentence of conclusion.  Bill:  Yeah,  Grace:  I t ' s k i n d o f w e i r d . Yeah. I don't l i k e [ i n a u d i b l e ] you s a y d i d ah i f you l i k e c a r r y l o t s o f money a h i f y o u d i d y o u may c a r r y . I don't know.  Bill:  t o o heavy  Grace:  Yeah, Yeah. I t h i n k I d o n ' t know. l i k e i t . That's i t . (393-406-2).  It his  it's....  wallet?  i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note that B i l l  Students d i s p l a y e d  don't  d i d n o t make c h a n g e s t o  e s s a y as a r e s u l t o f t h e peer response  O b s e r v a t i o n 8:  I just  session.  a f f e c t i n t h e i r behaviour  when working i n peer response groups.  T h i s a s p e c t was i l l u s t r a t e d  i n the students' concern  about n o t h u r t i n g t h e i r p e e r s ' f e e l i n g s , as w e l l as i n t h e p o s i t i v e comments made a b o u t t h e w r i t i n g .  T h e r e was e m p a t h y  i n comments s u c h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g :  Chie:  My e s s a y ' s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  Yukiko:  T h i s i s good t h i n g , v e r y u n i q u e t o p i c so v e r y f r e s h t o me ( 2 5 4 - 2 5 7 - 1 ) .  114 Yukiko:  and  T h i s i s good t h i n g , v e r y unique v e r y f r e s h t o me (254-257-1).  topic  so  later,  Chie:  b u t I'm good.  Jaesun:  It's just different. You j u s t f o c u s e d how use... [Yukiko, Jaesun, Riyoko together] advertising (266-269-1).  A f f e c t was  not  I good o r y o u r e s s a y s  a l s o e v i d e n t i n what F r e e d m a n  solidarity rituals of  s u r e am  (p.98).  These " r i t u a l i s t i c ,  n e g a t i v e " comments g i v e n i n a  support group u n i t y .  were s t a t e m e n t s  s u c h as t h e f o l l o w i n g :  but  I typed";  I found  also i n the  I n one  made a p o i n t o f s a y i n g " t h a n k y o u " to their  they  to...okay,  A f f e c t was  "politeness strategies"  p e e r s were f i n i s h e d r e s p o n d i n g  self-  , " I typed i t but i t ' s  a n a l y s i s of the t a p e s c r i p t s of the s e s s i o n s . students always  called  beginning  In t h i s study,  " I h a v e no t i m e  I wrote about the c r e d i t c a r d " .  r e v e a l e d i n the  to  of the groups i n p a r t i c u l a r .  d e p r e c a t o r y way  n o t q u i t e r i g h t way  (1992)  These o c c u r r e d a t t h e  t h e s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g i n one  are  writing.  group,  when  115 O b s e r v a t i o n 9:  Some students used feedback from peer  response s e s s i o n s i n r e v i s i n g  An response  their  essays.  a n a l y s i s of the t a p e s c r i p t s of the f o u r t h  peer  s e s s i o n r e v e a l e d t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f what h a v e b e e n  r e f e r r e d t o as t r o u b l e s o u r c e s i n s t u d e n t  essays.  T r o u b l e s o u r c e s , p o i n t e d o u t by p e e r g r o u p members, f r e q u e n t l y i n f l u e n c e d the r e v i s i o n of  essays.  In the study, t h r e e of the twelve p a r t i c i p a n t s r e c e i v e d no  s u g g e s t i o n s from t h e i r p e e r s , n o r were t h e y d i r e c t e d  troublesources i n their writing. consequently, response which  Their revised  owed n o t h i n g , a t l e a s t d i r e c t l y ,  sessions.  Two  essays.  essays, to the  other students received  they d i d not take i n t o account  when r e v i s i n g  G e o r g e , Naomi and B i l l aspects of t h e i r w r i t i n g .  was  their to  made u s e o f t h e comments f r o m o t h e r g r o u p  members i n t h e s e s s i o n s t o make c h a n g e s i n t h e i r  and u s e  peer  feedback  However t h e r e m a i n i n g s t u d e n t s , 7 o f t h e 12,  v a r y i n g degrees,  to  a l l r e c e i v e d feedback  on  E a c h c h o s e t o i g n o r e one  the other i n the r e v i s e d essay.  d e l i b e r a t e o r not  essays.  i s not e v i d e n t .  c o r r e c t e d a grammar e r r o r w h i c h  two comment  Whether t h i s  choice  I n George's case  h i s c l a s s m a t e s had  he  pointed  116  o u t t o h i m , b u t he d i d n o t a l t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f h i s e s s a y as Sun h a d s u g g e s t e d .  She made i t c l e a r t h a t s h e t h o u g h t  h i s c o n c l u s i o n was " l i t t l e w r i t e more...".  b i t short...  so I b e l i e v e you can  George d i d n o t , however, u s e t h i s  suggestion i n h i s revising. c o n s i d e r e d Sun's comment.  I t i s c e r t a i n l y p o s s i b l e he He may n o t h a v e known what o r how  t o a d d t o h i s c o n c l u s i o n ; he may, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h a v e p r e f e r r e d t o l e a v e t h e c o n c l u s i o n a s he h a d f i r s t  written  it.  Y u k i k o a n d C h i e b o t h made a number o f r e v i s i o n s t o their drafts.  Some were t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p e e r  s e s s i o n s ; o t h e r s were n o t .  response  Y u k i k o , f o r example, added a  sentence immediately a f t e r an e x p r e s s i o n which had p u z z l e d Riyoko, presumably  t o t r y t o i n t e g r a t e t h e i d i o m more  n a t u r a l l y i n t o h e r essay.  Chie's r e v i s i o n s a l s o took i n t o account t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e peer response group.  In the session,  Chie's  a t t e n t i o n h a d been drawn by J a e s u n t o t h e f a c t t h a t h e r t h e s i s statement d i d not r e a l l y f i t essay.  A comparison of t h e o r i g i n a l  the content ofthe and t h e r e v i s e d  117 versions  i n d i c a t e d h e r attempt t o respond t o Jaesun's  feedback.  By u s i n g t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t t h e c o n s u m e r s c a n s p e n d money c a r e f u l l y . T h e r e a r e l o t s o f d i f f e r e n t m e d i a l o f s t r a t e g i e s t o s e l l a p r o d u c t t o consumers. O R I G I N A L :  O c c a s i o n a l l y , a n enormous i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n f u s e d and b l i n d e d consumer's r i g h t d e c i s i o n . H o w e v e r , a w i s e c o n s u m e r h a s s e v e r a l m e t h o d s t o p i c k up a c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n by u s i n g a media. There a r e main media a w i s e consumer does. R E V I S E D :  W h i l e t h e r e v i s e d v e r s i o n may n o t h a v e b e e n n e c e s s a r i l y a n improvement on t h e o r i g i n a l ,  i t was e v i d e n c e o f a n a t t e m p t  t o r e s p o n d t o t h e needs o f a w i d e r a u d i e n c e as r e p r e s e n t e d by p e e r s .  C h i e made a d d i t i o n s , d e l e t i o n s a n d s u b s t i t u t i o n s , most of w h i c h were n o t t h e r e s u l t o f f e e d b a c k i n t h e p e e r response session.  One n o t e w o r t h y a d d i t i o n w h i c h was t h e  r e s u l t of Chie's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the peer response was  h e r a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f t h e word " r e p u t a t i o n " ,  and e x p l a i n e d  Terumi received  session  a word  by Jaesun.  and S u k j i v a n  a l s o used the feedback they  i n their revisions.  B o t h a l s o had changes n o t  used  118 a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the peer response s e s s i o n .  Sukjivan's  r e v i s i o n s w e r e t h e most e x t e n s i v e i n t h e s t u d y . all  problematic  areas  b e c a u s e t h e g r o u p had expressions.  She  s t a t e d t h i s was she,  herself,  first  added  revised  idioms  a p p r e c i a t e d h e r n a t u r a l use  a l s o changed her c o n c l u s i o n .  of  these  While  she  the r e s u l t of peer feedback, i n a c t u a l  had  commented on h e r c o n c l u s i o n d u r i n g  reading of her  O b s e r v a t i o n #10:  o f h e r w r i t i n g and  She  fact,  the  essay.  Both l e s s p r o f i c i e n t  and  more  proficient  students b e n e f i t e d from peer response s e s s i o n s .  In t h i s study, proficient  the data r e v e a l e d b e n e f i t s f o r both  and more p r o f i c i e n t  students  from  less  participation  i n peer response groups.  First,  the l e s s p r o f i c i e n t  students  p a r t i c i p a t e e q u a l l y i n the assigned proficient  students.  r e p e a t i n g the course, about the essays she  Chie, was  she h e a r d  were a b l e  to  t a s k w i t h o t h e r more  f o r example, the s t u d e n t  a b l e t o make g e n e r a l  was  comments  r e a d by h e r c l a s s m a t e s .  pointed to a troublesource i n Riyoko's  who  essay  Also,  stating  "I  119 j u s t wondered t h e meaning o f [bonus]." Jaesun's  essay read f o r t h e second  When s h e h e a r d  time, her s p e c i f i c  comment i n d i c a t e d h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e c o m p a r i s o n  between  t h e f a r m e r ' s market i n Kamloops and t h e Korean market.  In  summary, s h e e v a l u a t e d t h e e s s a y s , p o i n t e d t o t r o u b l e s o u r c e s a n d a s d i d more p r o f i c i e n t  s t u d e n t s , p a r t i c i p a t e d as an  e q u a l member o f t h e p e e r r e s p o n s e  More p r o f i c i e n t  group.  students as w e l l as l e s s  proficient  s t u d e n t s a p p r e c i a t e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o "share other  people"  topic".  a n d "compare  d i f f e r e n t approaches  T h e s e w e r e comments made b y J a e s u n ,  student i n the c l a s s .  idea  with  to one the best  K y o k o a n o t h e r more p r o f i c i e n t  student, a l s o expressed the sentiment that know the member's  ideas  and how they  write  " i t ' s good an  to  essay".  E c h o i n g J a e s u n a n d K y o k o was G e o r g e , one o f t h e l e s s proficient some good  One groups thought  s t u d e n t s , who s t a t e d i n h i s j o u r n a l , ideas  from  the  " J can get  classmates".  o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t g a i n s r e f e r r e d t o b y b o t h  o f s t u d e n t s was i m p r o v e d reading  listening".  "the essay  listening  in class  skill.  can improve  George my  Yukiko, another student l e s s p r o f i c i e n t  speaking, than  120 J a e s u n a n d Kyoko n o t e d i n h e r j o u r n a l t h a t go  up.  (I think  my peers peers'  so...)  so I need essays".  I want to give  to l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y .  good  level  suggestion  I concentrate  for on  my  E v e n t h o u g h J a e s u n i s a more p r o f i c i e n t  w r i t i n g s t u d e n t , she c o n c l u d e d h e r f i n a l similar  "my hearing  journal  in a  vein.  Most of a l l our group process i s b e n e f i c i a l to my listening skills. It makes me pay careful attention to catching the thesis statement and topic sentences of the essay so that I can understand the content of the essay and comment on the essay appropriately (3-#16).  K y o k o a n d J a e s u n , two o f t h e more p r o f i c i e n t s t u d e n t s i n t h e c l a s s , b e n e f i t e d from the o p p o r t u n i t y t o work w i t h t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s i n a group s e t t i n g  f o r t h e good o f a l l .  K y o k o n o t e d i n h e r j o u r n a l t h a t she l e a r n e d expressions... can't respect of  say,  I  y  x  think...',  Y o u should'  group  member's  or  "In my You are  y  writing"  h e r c l a s s m a t e ' s f e e l i n g s was  Because of h e r a b i l i t y illustrated  opinion' wrong'.  (3-#12).  "proper and  so on.  We have Jaesun's  evident i n the  We  to awareness  tapescript.  and h e r commitment t o t h e t a s k ,  i n t h e quote above, J a e s u n p o i n t e d t o  t r o u b l e s s o u r c e s i n t h e e s s a y s o f h e r p e e r g r o u p members.  In  121 e a c h i n s t a n c e s h e b e g a n h e r comment w i t h a n e x p r e s s i o n as  " I am w o n d e r i n g " ,  r e c e i v e feedback, t h e i r comments.  " I wondered".  she thanked  When i t was h e r t u r n t o  each o f h e r classmates f o r  H e r j o u r n a l made i t c l e a r s h e was a w a r e o f  b o t h h e r o b l i g a t i o n n o t .to h u r t h e r c l a s s m a t e s '  f e e l i n g s and  h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o h e l p them i d e n t i f y p r o b l e m a t i c of t h e i r w r i t i n g . concerned part,  Less p r o f i c i e n t  though, these  aspects  s t u d e n t s were a l s o  not t o hurt the feelings of others.  feedback.  such  students avoided g i v i n g  F o r t h e most  negative  They d i d , however, a s k q u e s t i o n s about word  c h o i c e and t h e meaning o f passages t h e y d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d .  Reading t h e i r essays proficient Yukiko  aloud b e n e f i t e d both  less  s t u d e n t s a n d t h o s e who w e r e more p r o f i c i e n t .  commented:  Whenever I write an essay, I have hard time to edit i t . I know there are l o t s of things need to be changed but I don't know where or how. When I read aloud, I can hear and also my peers can hear something that sounds unnatural (3-#2).  Kyoko c o n c u r r e d essay  aloud,  opportunity  I found to find  n o t i n g t h a t "when I was reading many mistakes mistakes  by  in i t . myself".  I t ' s good  my  122 A final  b e n e f i t e x p e r i e n c e d b y most s t u d e n t s w h a t e v e r  t h e i r p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l a p p e a r s t o be a n i n c r e a s e d  self  c o n f i d e n c e a n d s e n s e o f c o m f o r t when p a r t i c i p a t i n g  i n peer  response sessions w i t h classmates.  Sukjivan notes that  even  though t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e groups changed a t mid-term, the  c o m f o r t a b l e atmosphere  d i d n o t change.  began t h e peer response s e s s i o n s ,  When - Y u k i k o  s h e was e m b a r r a s s e d a n d  nervous about r e a d i n g h e r e s s a y a l o u d b u t by t h e end o f t h e s e m e s t e r , s h e was e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t t h e p r o c e s s , a n d i n h e r final  j o u r n a l e n t r y made no m e n t i o n o f a n y r e l u c t a n c e t o  s h a r e h e r work w i t h o t h e r s .  C h i e , t o o , was a p p a r e n t l y much  more c o n f i d e n t a n d c o m f o r t a b l e i n t h e "group w r i t i n g class the  semester.  which  a c t i v i t y in my  i s my f a v o r i t e a c t i v i t y " b y t h e e n d o f  123  CHAPTER F I V E  D i s c u s s i o n and  Implications  This chapter d i s c u s s e s the observations set f o r t h i n Chapter  Four.  I t a l s o presents the i m p l i c a t i o n s  o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r t h e ESL further  c l a s s r o o m and  suggests  of  areas  of  research.  Students' The  P e r c e p t i o n s of Peer  Response  observations i n t h i s study concerning  p e r c e p t i o n s of peer response because they v a r i e d Observations  seemed t o i n d i c a t e  i n Manglesdorf's  (1992)  students'  s e s s i o n s were i n t e r e s t i n g  from those of o t h e r  positive i n their attitudes  that  my  towards peer  studies. s t u d e n t s w e r e more response  than  Manglesdorf's  study are expressed  i n percentages  c o m p a r e d t o t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n my expressed  i n the f i r s t  those  study.  When t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e A s i a n p a r t i c i p a n t s  journal  a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d study,  those  as shown i n T a b l e  5.1.  entries, peer  and study  the r e s u l t s  response  in  as  indicate  work i n  my  124 T a b l e 5.1 Comparison  of H o l i s t i c Ratings Asian  Manglesdorf  (1992)  Participants  Positive  Mixed  Negative  8 (57.1%)  1 (7.1%)  5  (35.7%)  6 (50%)  4 (33.3%)  2  (16.6%)  (n = 14) My study  (1997)  (n = 12)  I n my s t u d y , t h e f i r s t overall  j o u r n a l s w e r e t h e most n e g a t i v e  a n d y e t my r e s u l t s w e r e s t i l l  more p o s i t i v e  than  Manglesdorf's.  A n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s e r e s u l t s may be f o u n d i n t h e f a c t t h a t i n t h i s s t u d y I was t h e t e a c h e r / r e s e a r c h e r .  The  r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t developed between t h e s t u d e n t s and t h e t e a c h e r / r e s e a r c h e r may h a v e r e s u l t e d i n more p o s i t i v e assessments  of peer response sessions.  M a n g l e s d o r f was a n  e x t e r n a l r e s e a r c h e r who a s k e d s t u d e n t s t o " t a k e a b o u t  twenty  minutes o f c l a s s time towards t h e end o f t h e semester t o  answer f o u r q u e s t i o n s about peer response (p.  i n writing"  275) . A n o t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e more  positive  p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n my s t u d y may be t h e f a c t all  that  o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m were o f A s i a n o r i g i n .  Consequently,  t h e y may h a v e f e l t more c o m f o r t a b l e w o r k i n g i n  peer response groups Manglesdorf's  than the A s i a n students i n  (1992) s t u d y where t h e 40 p a r t i c i p a n t s  "extremely heterogeneous  group"  (p. 2 75)  were an  s p e a k i n g 18  languages.  R e s u l t s t h e n seemed e n c o u r a g i n g .  The s t u d e n t s i n my  s t u d y , a l l o f whom w e r e A s i a n , a p p a r e n t l y w e r e no i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of peer response population i n Manglesdorf's  different  than the general  (1992) s t u d y  (See T a b l e 5 . 2 ) .  126 Table  5.2  Comparison  of H o l i s t i c Ratings All  Manglesdorf' s study  Participants  Positive  Mixed  Negative  22  12  6 (15%)  (55%)  (30%)  (n = 40) My  study  6 (50%)  4 (33.3%)  2  (16.6%)  (n = 12)  Changes i n P e r c e p t i o n s o v e r t h e  Semester  S t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f p e e r r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s i n my s t u d y changed over t h e course of the semester.  Table  4.1  (p. 89) i l l u s t r a t e d t h e c h a n g e s t h a t t o o k p l a c e a s t h e semester p r o g r e s s e d and as s t u d e n t s a r t i c u l a t e d i n t h e i r j o u r n a l e n t r i e s t h e b e n e f i t s and c o n c e r n s t h e y p e r c e i v e d i n peer response  First, the i n i t i a l  sessions.  as p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d , r e s u l t s o f t h e r a t i n g o f j o u r n a l e n t r i e s were v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e  t a b u l a t e d by Manglesdorf  (1992).  (See T a b l e 5 . 2 ) .  For the  127 s e c o n d j o u r n a l t h e r e were f e w e r e n t r i e s r a t e d as n e g a t i v e , but  t h e r e were a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l y  positive. the  The m a j o r i t y ,  third  63.6%, w e r e r a t e d a s m i x e d .  j o u r n a l t h e numbers c h a n g e d a g a i n ,  t h e r e w e r e no s t u d e n t s Journals  fewer e n t r i e s r a t e d For  and t h i s  whose j o u r n a l s w e r e t o t a l l y  time  negative.  r a t e d as p o s i t i v e were 44.4% o f t h e t o t a l  while  j o u r n a l s r a t e d m i x e d c o n s t i t u t e d 55.5%.  The  r e s u l t s shown b y t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s ,  conformed t o t h e t y p i c a l p a t t e r n evident  i n my  i n student  a t t i t u d e s g e n e r a l l y over the course of a semester. beginning, confident.  students  Finally,  In the  a r e f o r t h e most p a r t e n t h u s i a s t i c ,  By t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s e m e s t e r t h e y a r e  confronting challenges, difficult  opinion,  f i n d i n g t h e w o r k p e r h a p s somewhat  and a t t i m e s f e e l i n g c o n f u s e d and  discouraged.  b y t h e e n d o f t h e s e m e s t e r , most s t u d e n t s  have  r e s o l v e d w h a t e v e r p r o b l e m s t h e y have had, and u s u a l l y c o m p l e t e t h e t e r m w i t h some l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n o r a t l e a s t w i t h a mood o f a c c e p t a n c e .  128 B e n e f i t s and  The response  b e n e f i t s students p e r c e i v e d r e g a r d i n g the  i n c r e a s e d audience awareness  language  Lefkowitz,  1992;  (Gass & S e l i n k e r ,  Long & P o r t e r ,  by r e a d i n g i t a l o u d  1983),  (Mittan,  opportunities to practice l i s t e n i n g  the t a r g e t  way  peer  s e s s i o n s confirmed those d e s c r i b e d i n previous  studies: 1987),  Concerns  and  Guerrero,  1985),  1989;  t o and  1994;  Urzua,  speaking  Hedgcock  and  seeing text i n a  (Hedgcock & L e f k o w i t z , 1992;  l e a r n i n g from o t h e r s ' w r i t i n g  (Villamil  new  Zamel,  &  De  1996).  Students mentioned  having d i f f i c u l t y  understanding  c l a s s m a t e s ' p r o n u n c i a t i o n and r e m e m b e r i n g t h e e s s a y s were s h a r e d d u r i n g p e e r r e s p o n s e  sessions.  One  became c o n f u s e d u p o n h e a r i n g how  h e r p e e r s had  which  student shaped  e s s a y s , a n d h e r c o n f i d e n c e s u f f e r e d s i n c e she f e l t  their  her  e s s a y s w e r e n o t as w e l l w r i t t e n a s t h o s e o f t h e o t h e r s i n the' g r o u p .  These c o n c e r n s , w h i l e t h e y cannot  d i d not outweigh  the c o g n i t i v e ,  s o c i a l and  b e n e f i t s f o r students of p a r t i c i p a t i n g groups.  be d i s m i s s e d ,  linguistic  i n the peer  response  129 One  area of concern  evidenced  i n t h i s study.  complaints  response  (Obah, 1993;  are sometimes  & De  Guerrero,  lazy,  the r e s u l t of the  o f t h e g r o u p , o r p e r h a p s t h i s was  peer  1996).  comments r e l a t i n g c o n c e r n s  not  student  to the group t a s k of  Villamil  P e r h a p s t h i s was  exceptional  Peer  r e s e a r c h documents  or i n d i f f e r e n t  s t u d y t h e r e w e r e no  nature  The  a b o u t g r o u p members who  poorly prepared  nature.  m e n t i o n e d i n o t h e r s t u d i e s was  of  In  my  this  homogeneous  simply  an  class.  Interaction I n a n a l y z i n g what s t u d e n t s d i d i n t h e p e e r  s e s s i o n s , my Villamil  response  observations r e p l i c a t e d the f i n d i n g s of  and De  Guerrero  w e r e r e v e a l e d t o be  (1996).  The  peer response  s u r p r i s i n g l y r i c h and  complex i n both  s t u d i e s , g i v e n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e ways i n w h i c h s t u d i e s were  While  sessions  the  conducted.  Villamil  and De  Guerrero's  (1996)  participants  were v e r y c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e s t u d y , s u b j e c t s w e r e t h o s e who  had  simply e n r o l l e d i n the  my  class.  T h e i r w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s v a r i e d , as d i d t h e i r s t a t e d g o a l s ,  130 t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h e y h a d been i n Canada and t h e i r of o r i g i n . groups  For peer response  of four;  for Villamil  research project,  country  s e s s i o n s , my s t u d e n t s w e r e i n a n d De G u e r r e r o ' s  (1996)  s t u d e n t s worked i n dyads.  In s p i t e of the d i f f e r i n g designs of the studies, s t u d e n t s i n b o t h s t u d i e s engaged i n s o c i o - c o g n i t i v e activities,  made u s e o f m e d i a t i n g s t r a t e g i e s a n d e x h i b i t e d  aspects of s o c i a l behaviour c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of response groups  The  (Villamil  & De G u e r r e r o ,  1996).  p e e r i n t e r a c t i o n i n my s t u d y , h o w e v e r , was more  l i m i t e d than i n V i l l a m i l  a n d De G u e r r e r o ' s  (1996) .  e x a m p l e , my s t u d e n t s e n g a g e d i n f i v e n o t s e v e n cognitive activities worked o r a l l y ,  For  socio-  (p. 5 7 ) . B e c a u s e t h e r e s p o n s e  t h e y d i d n o t compose new s e n t e n c e s  other, nor d i d they a c t u a l l y  groups  f o r each  "deal with troublesources".  students pointed t o troublesources, the author noted  My  them,  a n d a t home, when r e v i s i n g t h e e s s a y , d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r t o make c h a n g e s o r n o t .  W i t h r e s p e c t t o m e d i a t i n g s t r a t e g i e s t h e r e was e v i d e n c e o n l y o f t h e u s e o f s c a f f o l d i n g s u b s t r a t e g i e s i n my s t u d y . Students h e l p e d each o t h e r understand responses  t o essays by  131 employing  t e n s u b s t r a t e g i e s such as  'requesting c l a r i f i c a t i o n ' .  'instructing',  F i n a l l y c o l l a b o r a t i o n , non-  c o l l a b o r a t i o n and a f f e c t were e v i d e n t i n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n my  It  study.  i s encouraging  situation,  t o note  that i n the classroom  s t u d e n t s r e a p many o f t h e same b e n e f i t s o f p e e r  i n t e r a c t i o n a s s t u d e n t s i n a more c o n t r o l l e d ,  homogeneous  environment.  Revision In  t h i s study,  based on t h e peer  7 o f 12 s t u d e n t s  response  made m i n o r c h a n g e s . grammar e r r o r ; B i l l  sessions.  revisions  Most o f t h e s t u d e n t s  George, f o r example, c o r r e c t e d a c r e a t e d two p a r a g r a p h s  added i n f o r m a t i o n h e r c l a s s m a t e s two  (58%) made  o f o n e ; Naomi  o f f e r e d t o h e r essay.  students r e v i s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y u s i n g peer  Only  feedback.  These r e s u l t s were d i s a p p o i n t i n g .  Mendonca a n d J o h n s o n ' s n e g o t i a t i o n and r e v i s i o n . the i n s t a n c e s o f r e v i s i o n s , peers'  comments"  (1994) s t u d y f o c u s e d o n p e e r R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t " i n 53% o f students incorporated t h e i r  (p. 7 5 8 ) . However, t h e r e v i s i o n s t h a t w e r e  132 made seemed t o be more s u b s t a n t i v e t h a n what was e v i d e n t i n my s t u d y .  I t was p o s s i b l e t h i s was a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e  f a c t t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s i n Mendonca a n d J o h n s o n ' s s t u d y  were  graduate  than  550.  s t u d e n t s w i t h TOEFL s c o r e s . e q u a l t o o r h i g h e r  My s t u d e n t s w e r e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s  b e l o w 550.  w i t h TOEFL s c o r e s o f  I t may be t o o t h a t w o r k i n g  i n pairs with a  r e v i s i o n s h e e t made a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e t y p e s o f r e v i s i o n s which  Mendonca a n d J o h n s o n ' s s t u d e n t s made.  Feedback  Issues  One o f t h e p r o b l e m a t i c a r e a s o f p e e r students'  f e e l i n g s of inadequacy  and  was t h e  when t h e y w e r e a s k e d  c r i t i q u e t h e i r classmates' w r i t i n g . were t h e d i s t r u s t  response  to  Corollaries to this  two o f my s t u d e n t s h a d o f p e e r  the consequent d e s i r e f o r teacher feedback.  feedback In these  two i n s t a n c e s s t u d e n t s ' v i e w s w e r e s i m i l a r t o t h e v i e w s p a r t i c i p a n t s i n Zhang's  (1995) s t u d y , where i t was  t h a t most s t u d e n t s p r e f e r r e d t e a c h e r f e e d b a c k feedback  of  clear  t o peer  when g i v e n a c l e a r c h o i c e .  Such r e s u l t s were n o t s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e t h e t e a c h e r i s , after a l l ,  the f i n a l  a u t h o r i t y i n the classroom,  and o f t e n  133 one  o f t h e few n a t i v e s p e a k e r s  into contact. to  w i t h whom many s t u d e n t s  I t makes e m i n e n t s e n s e f o r s t u d e n t s t o p r e f e r  have the t e a c h e r p r o v i d e feedback  than t h e i r  It concerns  come  on t h e i r e s s a y s  rather  peers.  i s important  t o l i s t e n t o s t u d e n t s and  r e g a r d i n g peer feedback.  student  i n t h e s t u d y who  was  teacher  s h o u l d p r o v i d e feedback,  their  For example, B i l l ,  t h e most adamant t h a t had  the  the  g o o d i d e a s and  spoke  f l u e n t l y as a r e s u l t o f a t t e n d i n g h i g h s c h o o l i n C a n a d a . H i s d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h w r i t i n g c e n t e r e d a r o u n d grammar. Given  the task s t r u c t u r e ,  k i n d of feedback his  writing.  Bill  knew he was  from h i s peers  Bill  not  receiving  t h a t he n e e d e d t o  improve  would l i k e l y have f a r e d b e t t e r had  worked i n a dyad w i t h a w r i t t e n copy of h i s p a r t n e r ' s to  e x a m i n e and  In  comment  denied  During  to B i l l  not  was  i n a d d i t i o n t o peer feedback was  n o r t o any  not  s t u d e n t s need  t h i s study,  was  Teacher feedback  he essay  on.  a d d i t i o n t o peer feedback,  from t h e i r teachers.  the  teacher  feedback feedback  of the s t u d e n t s ; i t r a t h e r not  i n p l a c e of i t .  s t u d i e d but  i t seemed t o be  most  134 useful  i f i t was f o c u s e d o n grammar a t t h e f i n a l  editing  (Hedgcock  One f i n a l  and L e f k o w i t z ,  on t e a c h e r f e e d b a c k because  to recognize their responsibility  own w r i t i n g " are  1992).  comment n e e d s t o be made. S t u d e n t s may  p e e r feedback and i n s i s t "fail  stage,  ( D e v i n e , 1 9 9 3 , p. 1 8 8 ) .  resist they  f o r monitoring their  Peer response  an attempt t o h e l p s t u d e n t s r e a l i z e t h i s  P e r h a p s t e a c h e r s n e e d t o be more e x p l i c i t  sessions  responsibility.  about t h i s  goal.  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Teaching First,  t e a c h e r s n e e d t o be e n c o u r a g e d  response groups are  i n their writing  t o use peer  classrooms.  c o n s i d e r a b l e f o r ESL s t u d e n t s .  The b e n e f i t s  Although conducting peer  response i s not without i t s problems,  t h e time and e f f o r t  r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e how t o m i t i g a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s  are worth  expending. Because it  t h i s was a n a c t i o n r e s e a r c h s t u d y whose p u r p o s e  was t o i m p r o v e my t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e a n d t o i m p r o v e  l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r my s t u d e n t s , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o l l o w a r e made w i t h s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o my  that  situation.  135 In training  f u t u r e w r i t i n g c l a s s e s , p r o v i d i n g more e x t e n s i v e f o r peer response s e s s i o n s w i l l  p a r t i c i p a t e more f u l l y i n t h e p r o c e s s .  help students t o First,  language  t r a i n i n g needs p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n s i n c e t h e use o f p o l i t e n e s s s t r a t e g i e s and f a c i l i t a t i v e  language  seemed t o  p r o m o t e a more c o o p e r a t i v e a t m o s p h e r e i n t h e s e s s i o n s , a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y r e s u l t e d i n g r e a t e r s o c i a l and academic benefits  (Manglesdorf and Schlumberger,  Murphy, 1993).  Coaching students i n the use of s c a f f o l d i n g  s u b s t r a t e g i e s would for  revision"  1992; N e l s o n &  "offer  (Stanley,  [ p e e r s ] more s p e c i f i c  1992, p. 2 2 9 ) .  p r a c t i c e w i t h such s t r a t e g i e s perhaps  guidelines  Some p r e l i m i n a r y i n a whole  class  a c t i v i t y w i t h a model e s s a y would h e l p s t u d e n t s u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r t a s k a n d g i v e them a d d i t i o n a l accomplishing that  Next,  s t u d e n t s n e e d t o be made aware o f t h e a d v a n t a g e s They a p p a r e n t l y s e e t h e  s o l e l y as a v e h i c l e f o r h a v i n g t h e i r essays  b e f o r e t h o s e e s s a y s must be h a n d e d i n . t h a t a c c r u e n e e d t o be e x p l i c i t l y this  resources f o r  task.  inherent i n peer response sessions. activity  language  The o t h e r b e n e f i t s  presented.  i n w r i t i n g c l a s s e s next semester,  'fixed'  I would  m o n i t o r p r o g r e s s w i t h each group by examining  To a c c o m p l i s h like to tape  136 r e c o r d i n g s o f t h e s e s s i o n s and use p o r t i o n s o f t h e t a p e s c r i p t s w i t h s t u d e n t s t o h e l p them become more c o g n i z a n t of are  t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e t a s k , and t h e b e n e f i t s  they  receiving.  Finally,  a t l e a s t once a semester I would l i k e t o  conduct p e e r response s e s s i o n s u s i n g dyads and t o g i v e students w r i t t e n copies of the essays. would  like  t o compare t h e p e e r i n t e r a c t i o n o f d y a d s  that which takes p l a c e i n groups. to  In particular,  In addition,  I  with  I would  like  e x p l o r e t h e s t u d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w o r k i n g i n dyads and  more c l o s e l y i n v e s t i g a t e p a t t e r n s o f r e v i s i o n .  To s u p p o r t p e e r r e s p o n s e g r o u p s , ' t e a c h e r s n e e d t o m o n i t o r s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s , and g i v e a s s i s t a n c e where necessary.  I n my c l a s s n e x t s e m e s t e r , t e a c h e r f e e d b a c k  be g i v e n d u r i n g t h e e d i t i n g s t a g e .  will  I f students are quite  c l e a r t h a t p e e r feedback and t e a c h e r feedback a r e b o t h available although at different  t i m e s and f o r d i f f e r e n t  p u r p o s e s , s t u d e n t s may be more r e c e p t i v e t o p e e r during peer response  sessions.  feedback  137 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Research  R e s e a r c h i n t o t h e peer response p r o c e s s needs t o continue.  Issues of interest  j u s t b e g i n n i n g t o be e x p l o r e d  a r e t h o s e t h a t h a v e t o do w i t h c u l t u r e 1994).  (Carson & Nelson,  " I n group/out group r e l a t i o n s h i p s  i n w r i t i n g groups"  [as t h e y ] p l a y o u t  (p. 27) n e e d t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d i f p e e r  r e s p o n s e g r o u p s a r e t o c o n t i n u e t o be e f f e c t i v e  i n ESL  classrooms.  Research i n t o peer r e v i s i o n perhaps  through think aloud  p r o t o c o l s w o u l d p r o v i d e u s w i t h more i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t  why  s t u d e n t s have v a r y i n g a t t i t u d e s t o u s i n g p e e r s u g g e s t i o n s . G o l d s t e i n and Conrad participates  (1990) p o i n t o u t t h a t  " e a c h s t u d e n t who  i n a conference brings to that conference a  u n i q u e p e r s o n a l i t y t h a t may a f f e c t t h e ways i n w h i c h student behaves"  (p. 4 5 5 ) .  response studies.  Perhaps  This i s surely true of peer i t i s p e r s o n a l i t y which  for Sukjivan's enthusiastic r e v i s i o n behaviour. q u e s t i o n s need  It  accounts  Such  attention.  i s a l s o important t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether  revisions  w h i c h do t a k e p l a c e a c t u a l l y i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y o f students'  that  writing.  138 Another i s s u e r e q u i r i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n v o l v e s whether o r not  students,  as a r e s u l t o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g  r e s p o n s e s e s s i o n s , become more c a p a b l e revising their  Finally, and  of  i n peer  independently-  work.  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l a s s r o o m  what f e a t u r e s o f c o m p o s i t i o n  g r o u p n e e d s t o be  are attended  instruction  to i n the  explored.  There i s scope f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o p e e r i n the  peer  second language classroom  f u r t h e r our understanding  and  such research  of the process  and  response will  improve  learning conditions f o r students.  Summary T h i s s t u d y was  an a c t i o n r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t d e s i g n e d  e x p l o r e whether students and  b e n e f i t e d from peer response groups  i f so t o what e x t e n t .  r e s p o n s e g r o u p s was journals,  and  on t h e s i t u a t i o n was  The  and  of  using  reported i n this thesis. put  Reflection Finally,  i n p l a c e f o r the  This study e x e m p l i f i e d the  "spiral  peer diaries,  g r o u p s were o b s e r v e d .  amended p l a n f o r a c t i o n was semester.  implementation  c a r e f u l l y planned  audiotapes,  to  of  an  coming planning,  139 acting,  observing  r e s e a r c h approach"  and  r e f l e c t i n g . . . c e n t r a l to the a c t i o n  (Kemmis, 1992,  p.  178).  A c t i o n r e s e a r c h i s c o l l a b o r a t i v e "whenever p o s s i b l e i n v o l v i n g c o p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e i r enlightenment t h e i r own  i n r e l a t i o n t o s o c i a l on a p o l i t i c a l  situations"  p r o j e c t has  (p. 1 8 5 ) .  been c o l l a b o r a t i v e ,  i n v o l v i n g a c o l l e a g u e who  I n a s m a l l way,  own  action in this  i n v o l v i n g students  i s , as a r e s u l t o f t h i s  and study,  committed to u s i n g peer response groups i n her classroom n a t i v e speakers. classroom,  In i n v e s t i g a t i n g peer response i n  I h a v e become c o n v i n c e d  response s e s s i o n s are not  my  t h a t the problems of  insurmountable  b e n e f i t s a r e t o o numerous t o be  of  and  that  peer  the  f o r f e i t e d by not u s i n g  peer  response groups.  This a c t i o n research project w i l l (1991) s u g g e s t s  that " i t [is] necessary  three or four cycles before the  one  The  t h e end  final  Elliott  to complete at  o u g h t t o be  i m p r o v e m e n t e f f e c t e d " (p. 8 5 ) .  beginning,  continue.  satisfied  This study  least with  i s only  a  of the f i r s t c y c l e .  step i n t h i s study  r e s u l t s of the study  i s the s h a r i n g of  i n t h e t h e s i s and  the  with colleagues  both  140 i n f o r m a l l y and p e r h a p s f o r m a l l y t h r o u g h workshops. Conducting t h i s my  teaching  study w i l l  c e r t a i n l y l e a d t o improvements i n  p r a c t i c e and t o improvements i n c o n d i t i o n s f o r  student learning.  I t i s my hope t h a t  o t h e r t e a c h e r s and t h e i r  students.  i twill  also  benefit  141 References B e j a r n o , Y. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . An i n t e g r a t e d model f o r the second-language c l a s s r o o m . S. S h a r a n ( E d . ) , Handbook o f c o o p e r a t i v e m e t h o d s (pp. 1 9 3 - 2 1 1 ) .  groupwork In learning  B e l l , J. (1991). Using peer response groups i n writing classes. TESL Canada J o u r n a l . 8 ( 2 ) , 6 5 - 7 1 .  The New  ESL  B i a l y s t o k , E., & H a k u t a , K. (1994). In o t h e r words: s c i e n c e and p s y c h o l o g y o f s e c o n d - l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . York: B a s i c Books.  B r o o k f i e l d , S. r e f l e c t i v e teacher. Bruffee, "conversation 652 .  (1995). Becoming a c r i t i c a l l y San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass Publishers.  K. (1984). C o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g and t h e of mankind". C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 46 ( 7 ) , 63 5-  B r u f f e e , K. (1986). S o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , language the a u t h o r i t y of knowledge: A b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l essay. C o l l e g e E n g l i s h . 48 ( 8 ) , 773-790.  and  C a r r o l l , M. (1994). J o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a l e a r n i n g and r e s e a r c h t o o l i n the a d u l t classroom. TESOL J o u r n a l . 4 ( 1 ) , 19-22 . C a r s o n , J . & N e l s o n , G. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . W r i t i n g groups: cultural issues. J o u r n a l of Second Language W r i t i n g 3 17-30. C a r s w e l l , R. (1988)'. course. English Quarterly,  Journals i n graduate 21 ( 2 ) , 104-114.  Cross (1),  curriculum  C a s a n a v e , C. (1994). Language development i n students' journals. J o u r n a l of Second Language W r i t i n g , (3), 179-201. C a z d e n , C. o f t e a c h i n g and  3  (1988). C l a s s r o o m d i s c o u r s e : The l a n g u a g e learning. P o r t s m o u t h , NH: Heinemann.  142 C o e l h o , E. (1992). Cooperative Learning: Foundation f o r a c o m m u n i c a t i v e c u r r i c u l u m . I n C. K e s s l e r ( E d . ) , C o o p e r a t i v e language l e a r n i n g : A t e a c h e r ' s r e s o u r c e book (pp. 31-50) . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e H a l l R e g e n t s . C o n n o r , U., & A s e n a v a g e , K. (1994). Peer response g r o u p s i n ESL w r i t i n g c l a s s e s : How much i m p a c t o n revision?. J o u r n a l o f S e c o n d L a n g u a g e W r i t i n g . 3 ( 3 ) , 257276 . C r y s t a l , D. (1991). A d i c t i o n a r y o f l i n g u i s t i c s and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. D a v i e s , N., & Omberg, M. S y s t e m . 15 ( 3 ) , ( 3 1 3 - 3 2 3 ) .  (1987).  Peer group t e a c h i n g .  Devine, J . (1993). The r o l e o f m e t a c o g n i t i o n i n second language r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g . I n J . Carson & I . L e k i (Eds.), Reading i n the composition classroom: Second l a n g u a g e p e r s p e c t i v e s (pp. 1 0 5 - 1 2 7 ) . Boston: H e i n l e and Heinle Publishers. Dheram, P. (1995). Feedback as a t w o - b u l l o c k c a r t : A case study of t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g . ELT J o u r n a l . 4 9 ( 2 ) , 160168 . D i P a r d o , A., & F r e e d m a n , S. (1988). Peer response groups i n the w r i t i n g classroom: T h e o r e t i c f o u n d a t i o n s and new d i r e c t i o n s . R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 58 ( 2 ) , 119-149. E l b o w , P. (1973) . W r i t i n g w i t h o u t t e a c h e r s . Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press.  London:  E l l i o t t , J . (1991). A c t i o n research f o reducational change. M i l t o n Keynes: Open U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . F a i g l e y , L., & W i t t e , S. (1981). Analyzing revision. C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 32. 4 0 0 - 4 1 5 . F a t h m a n , A., & W h a l l e y , E. (1990). Teacher response to student w r i t i n g s : f o c u s on form v e r s u s c o n t e n t . I n B. K r o l l ( E d . ) , S e c o n d l a n g u a g e w r i t i n g : Research i n s i g h t s for the classroom (pp.178-190) . C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge University Press.  143 Flavell, J. (1979). M e t a c o g n i t i o n and c o g n i t i v e monitoring: A new a r e a o f c o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l i n q u i r y . A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t 34 ( 1 0 ) , 9 0 6 - 9 1 1 . F l o w e r , L., & H a y e s , J . (1981). A cognitive process theory of w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 32 ( 4 ) , 3 6 5 - 3 8 7 . F r e e d m a n , S. (1992). O u t s i d e - i n and i n s i d e o u t : Peer r e s p o n s e g r o u p s i n two n i n t h - g r a d e c l a s s e s . Research i n the T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h . 26 ( 1 ) , 71-105. G a s s , S. & S e l i n k e r , L. acquisition. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: G e r e , A. implications. Press.  (1994). Second language Laurence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .  (1987). W r i t i n g groups: h i s t o r y , t h e o r y and C a r b o n d a l e 111: South I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y  G o l d s t e i n , L. & C o n r a d , S. (1990). Student n e g o t i a t i o n o f m e a n i n g i n ESL w r i t i n g c o n f e r e n c e s Q u a r t e r l y 24, 4 4 3 - 4 6 0 .  ed.).  Gregg, J . Boston:  (1993). C o m m u n i c a t i o n and Heinle & Heinle.  i n p u t and TESOL  culture.  (4th  H e d g c o c k , J . & L e f k o w i t z , N. (1992). Collaborative o r a l / a u r a l r e v i s i o n i n f o r e i g n language w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f Second Language W r i t i n g 1 ( 3 ) , 255-276. H i l g e r s , T. (1986). How c h i l d r e n c h a n g e a s c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t o r s of w r i t i n g : Four t h r e e - y e a r case s t u d i e s . R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h 20 ( 1 ) , 3 6 - 5 5 . H o l m e s , V. & M o u l t o n , M. (1995). A c o n t r a r i a n view dialogue journals: The c a s e o f a r e l u c t a n t p a r t i c i p a n t . J o u r n a l o f Second Language W r i t i n g 4 ( 3 ) , 223-251. J a c o b s , G. (1987). f e e d b a c k on c o m p o s i t i o n : S y s t e m . 15 ( 3 ) , 3 2 5 - 3 3 3 .  of  F i r s t experiences w i t h peer S t u d e n t and t e a c h e r r e a c t i o n .  Jarvis, J. (1992). Using d i a r i e s f o r teacher r e f l e c t i o n on i n - s e r v i c e c o u r s e s . ELT J o u r n a l . 4 6 ( 2 ) , 143 .  133-  144 K a g a n , S. (1990). The s t r u c t u r a l a p p r o a c h t o cooperative learning. Educational Leadership. Dec '90. 12-15.  '89/Jan  Kemmis, S. (1993). Action research. I n M. H a m m e r s l e y (Ed), E d u c a t i o n a l Research: Current issues. London: Paul Chapman (pp. 1 7 7 - 1 9 0 ) . K e s s l e r , C. (Ed) ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Cooperative language learning: A t e a c h e r ' s r e s o u r c e book. Englewood C l i f f s , P r e n t i c e H a l l Regents. L e e c h , G., & S v a r t v i k , J . Grammar o f E n g l i s h . Singapore:  (1975) . A Longman.  NJ:  Communicative  L o n g , M., & P o r t e r , P. (1985). Group work, i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . Q u a r t e r l y . 19 ( 2 ) , 207-227.  TESOL  M a n g l e s d o r f , K. (1989). P a r a l l e l s between s p e a k i n g and w r i t i n g i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n D. J o h n s o n D. R o e n ( E d s . ) , R i c h n e s s i n w r i t i n g : E m p o w e r i n g E.S.L. s t u d e n t s (pp. 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 ) . W h i t e P l a i n s , NY: Longman. M a n g e l s d o r f , K. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . P e e r r e v i e w s i n t h e ESL c o m p o s i t i o n c l a s s r o o m : what do t h e s t u d e n t s t h i n k ? . ELT J o u r n a l . 4 6 ( 3 ) , 274-284. M a n g e l s d o r f , K., & S c h l u m b e r g e r , A. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . ESL student response stances i n peer review task. J o u r n a l of S e c o n d L a n g u a g e W r i t i n g . ( 3 ) . 235-254. M c D o n e l l , W. (1992). L a n g u a g e and c o g n i t i v e development through c o o p e r a t i v e groupwork. I n C. K e s s l e r (Ed.), Cooperative language l e a r n i n g : A teacher's resource b o o k (pp. 51-64) . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N J : Prentice Hall Regents. McDonough, J . (1994). A teacher looks at teachers' diaries. ELT J o u r n a l . 4 8 ( 1 ) , 57. M c G r o a r t y , M. (1989). The b e n e f i t s o f c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g arrangements i n second language i n s t r u c t i o n . NABE J o u r n a l W i n t e r . 127-143.  &  145 Mendonca, C , & J o h n s o n , K. (1994) . P e e r r e v i e w negotiations: R e v i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n ESL w r i t i n g instruction. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 28 ( 4 ) , 745-769. M i t t a n , R. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . The p e e r r e v i e w p r o c e s s : H a r n e s s i n g s t u d e n t s ' communicative power. I n D. J o h n s o n D. R o e n ( E d s . ) , R i c h n e s s i n w r i t i n g : E m p o w e r i n g ESL s t u d e n t s ( p . 2 0 7 - 2 1 9 ) . W h i t e P l a i n s , NY: Longman.  and  M y e r s , C. (1990). S h a r i n g t h e power: facilitating l e a r n e r i n d e p e n d e n c e i n t h e a d u l t ESL c l a s s r o o m . TESL C a n a d a J o u r n a l . 8 ( 1 ) , 77-86. N e l s o n , G., & Murphy, J . (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 w r i t e r s u s e p e e r comments i n r e v i s i n g t h e i r drafts? TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 2 7 ( 1 ) , 1 3 5 - 1 4 1 . Newman, J . (1988). Sharing journals: Conversational m i r r o r s f o r s e e i n g o u r s e l v e s a s l e a r n e r s , w r i t e r s and . teachers. E n g l i s h Education. October. 134-155. Obah, T. writing class.  (1993). L e a r n i n g f r o m o t h e r s i n t h e ESL E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 25 1, 8-13.  in  O l s e n R. & Kagan, S. (1992). About c o o p e r a t i v e learning. I n C. K e s s l e r ( E d . ) , C o o p e r a t i v e l a n g u a g e learning: A t e a c h e r ' s r e s o u r c e b o o k (pp. 1-3 0) . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l Regents. R a i m e s , A. (1985). What u n s k i l l e d ESL s t u d e n t s do they w r i t e : A c l a s s r o o m s t u d y o f c o m p o s i n g . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 19 ( 2 ) , 2 2 9 - 2 5 5 .  as  R a i m e s , A. (1991). Out o f t h e woods: Emerging t r a d i t i o n s i n the t e a c h i n g of w r i t i n g . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 2 5 (3) 4 0 7 - 4 3 0 . Robb, T., R o s s , S. & S h o r t r e e d , I . (1986). Salience o f f e e d b a c k on e r r o r and i t s e f f e c t on EFL w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 2 0 ( 1 ) , 83-95.  146 S a i t o , H. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T e a c h e r s ' p r a c t i c e s a n d s t u d e n t s ' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r feedback on second language w r i t i n g : A case s t u d y o f a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . TESL Canada J o u r n a l , 11 ( 2 ) , 46-70. Samway, K. (1993). "This i s hard i s n ' t i t ? " : Children evaluating writing. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 2 7 ( 2 ) , 2 3 3 257 . S a v i g n o n , S. (1991). Communicative language t e a c h i n g : S t a t e o f t h e a r t . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 2 5 ( 2 ) , 2 6 1 - 2 7 7 . S i l v a , T. (1990). Second language c o m p o s i t i o n instruction: Developments i s s u e s and d i r e c t i o n s . I n B. K r o l l (Ed.) S e c o n d l a n g u a g e w r i t i n g (pp. 1 1 - 2 3 ) . New Y o r k : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . S l a v i n , R. (1990). R e s e a r c h on c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g : C o n s e n s u s a n d c o n t r o v e r s y . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p Dec. ' 8 9 / J a n . '90, 52-54. S l a v i n , R. (1991). S y n t h e s i s o f R e s e a r c h on C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p 4 8 ( 5 ) , 71-82. S t a n l e y , J . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . C o a c h i n g s t u d e n t w r i t e r s t o be e f f e c t i v e peer evaluators. J o u r n a l o f Second Language W r i t i n g 1 ( 3 ) , 217-233. Student w r i t i n g groups: (1988) [Video].  Demonstrating the process  S u r b e c k , E., P a r k Han, H., •& M o y e r , J . (1991). Assessing r e f l e c t i v e responses i n j o u r n a l s . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 48 ( 6 ) , 25-27. Teachers Guide: the P r o c e s s (1988).  Student W r i t i n g Groups:  Demonstrating  T e b o - M e s s i n a , M. (1989). A u t h o r i t y and models o f t h e w r i t i n g workshop: A l l c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g i s not e q u a l . The W r i t i n g I n s t r u c t o r . Winter. 86-92. U r z u a , C. (1987). "You s t o p p e d t o o s o o n " : Second language c h i l d r e n composing and r e v i s i n g . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21 ( 2 ) , 279 - 2 9 9 .  147 V i l l a m i l , 0., & De G u e r r e r o , M. (1996). Peer r e v i s i o n i n t h e second language classroom: s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s , m e d i a t i n g s t r a t e g i e s and a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l behaviour. J o u r n a l o f S e c o n d Language W r i t i n g . 5 ( 1 ) . 5 1 75 . V y g o t s k y , L. (1934/1986). Cambridge: The MIT P r e s s .  Thought  and language.  Z a m e l , V. (1982). W r i t i n g : The p r o c e s s o f d i s c o v e r i n g meaning. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 16 ( 2 ) , 195-209. Z a m e l , V. (1983) . The c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s o f a d v a n c e d ESL s t u d e n t s : S i x case s t u d i e s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 17 ( 2 ) , 165 . Z a m e l , V. (1987). Recent r e s e a r c h ' o n w r i t i n g pedagogy. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21 ( 4 ) , 697-715. Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining t h e a f f e c t i v e advantage o f p e e r f e e d b a c k i n t h e ESL w r i t i n g c l a s s . Journal of S e c o n d L a n g u a g e W r i t i n g . 4 ( 3 ) , 209-222.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 4 2
China 4 9
Indonesia 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 4 0
Ashburn 3 0
Unknown 1 0
Bristol 1 0
San Mateo 1 1

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078139/manifest

Comment

Related Items