peer

Peer-reviewasanImportantWaytoImprove

theTeachingofEnglishWritinginSeniorHigh

School

WangJinhong

uction

WritingisanesntialpartofEnglishstudyinniorhighschool

curriculumstandards

stipulatethatwehavetoregarditasthegeneralgoalintheEnglish

teachingcultivatingstudents’capacityofutilizinglanguage

r,howtomaketheEnglishwritingteachingmore

correctingerrorsinwritingisanindispensablecomponentofwriting

ionally,itwasbelievedthatcorrectingthe

students'writingistheteacher'stasks,butitoftenresultedinthe

ore,it'sofgreatsignificance

toexploretheeffectivecorrectionmethodtoimprovetheteaching

perisonthebasisofthetheoryof

"CooperativeLearning"andVygotsky’sZoneofProximalDevelopmentand

ntho,andaccordingtothe

previousrearches,theauthordesignedawritingteachingmodel

suitablefortheniorhighschoolstudents--peerreviewtohelpthe

studenttoevaluateandrevitheirarticles.

Asisknowntoall,theteachingofwritingfocusontheformal

accuracyofthelanguage,suchasgrammar,syntax,y,

thelinearprocessofteachingwritingislikethefollowing:the

teacherassigningthewritingtopic,studentswriting,theteacher

correctingtheformalerrorssuchaswordsspelling,ntencestructure,

dents’writingisanindividualandisolatedprocess.

Besidesthat,teachersworktheirheartoutofmarkingstudents’

homeworkunderliningandcorrectingerrorsonebyone,however,students

turnblindeyestoexercibooksandstillmakethesamemistakesnext

’sapitythatteachersspendalargequantityoftimechecking

andevaluatinghomeworkearnestlyinreturnoffailureandignorance.

Peer

reviewisawritingactivityinwhichstudentsformpairsorgroups

toreadeachother'scompositionandmakesuggestionsforrevision

(Mangelsdorf,1992).Itisalsotermedpeerfeedback,peerrespon,

peerrevision,peercritiquing,peerevaluation,peerediting,

theteachingofEnglishcomposition,peerreviewreferstothepractice

oflettingstudentsreviewandcorrectthecompositionsforeachother.

Studieshaveshownthatstudentsdonotlearnwellwhentheyare

isolated,silent“receivers”ofknowledge(Ellis,1985).Indeed,

learningismosteffectivewhenstudentsovercomebothisolationand

viewexercissucceedinwritingclassbecauthey

givestudentstheopportunitytobecomeactivelyinvolvedinthe

activitieswiththeirpeers.

Althoughpeerreviewenjoysstrongtheoreticalsupportandhas

becomearegularfeatureofwritinginstructionsabroad,itremainsa

sdorf

(1992:117)saidthisisbecaupeerreviewisacommonactivityofthe

processapproach,whereaswritinginstructioninChinaisdominatedby

theproductapproach,inwhichonlyteachersrespondtostudentwriting.

Inrecentyears,however,moreandmoreChineteachershavebecome

pointsoutthataspeer

reviewishighlyrecommendedbyprocessproponents,it'sverylikely

thatChineteacherswilltrythisactivitywhentheyadopttheprocess

udyintendstoinvestigatethreequestions:

(1)HowdoniorhighstudentsofChinareacttopeerreviewand

teachercomments?

(2)Whateffectdoespeerreviewhaveonstudentrevision?

(3)Whatkindofproblemxistduringtheapplicationofpeer

reviewinniorhighschools?Howtoavoidorsolvetheproblems?

ThisstudyhasgreatsignificanceinChinaasnowadaysinChina,

bigclassthatcharacterizetheteachingofEnglishloadtheteachers

yateacherhastoteach100studentsorso,andthe

numberisgoingoncontinuouslyduetotheincreaofenrollmentin

ans,besidespreparingandgivinglessons,the

thelimitedtimepermittedbeingspentingivingfeedback,teachers

eitherdecreatheassignmentorreducethecorrectionsandcomments.

However,neitherofthechoicesdoesany

goodtotheimprovementofstudents’uch

circumstance,peerreviewcanliberateteachersfromstacksofpapers

tion,itcanmake

studentsmoreresponsiblefortheirownlearningsoastodevelopmore

ore,itisnecessaryfortheprentstudyto

explorethepossibilityofadoptingpeerreviewinEFLwritingclassroom.

tureReview

2.1Theoreticalfoundation

Keh(1990:34)saidFeedbackisafundamentalelementofaprocess

rocessapproach,reviewingisagreatly

enhancedby“havingmorethanonepersonworkingonit,andthe

generationofideasisfrequentlymorelivelywithtwoormorepeople

involvedthanitiswhenwritersworkontheirown”(Hammer,2003).As

veralESLcompositionrearchershavenoted,thepeerreviewhasthe

(1989)wrotethatpeer

reviewsachievethefollowing:providestudentswithanauthentic

audience:increastudents’motivationforwriting;enablestudentsto

receivedifferentviewsontheirwriting;helpstudentslearntoread

criticallytheirownwriting;andassiststudentsingainingconfidence

intheirwritingetc.

Cooperativelearning(JohnsonandJohnson,1986:3)is“the

instructionaluofsmallgroupssothatstudentsworktogetherto

maximizetheirownandeachothers’leaning”.Therearchclearly

indicatesthatCooperationcomparedwithcompetitiveandindividualistic

effortstypicallyresultsin(a)higherachievementandgreater

productivity,(b)morecaring,supportive,andcommittedrelationships,

and(c)greaterpsychologicalhealth,socialcompetence,andlf-esteem.

Cooperativelearningalsoresultedinmorehigher-levelreasoning,more

frequentgenerationofnewideasandsolutions,andgreatertransferof

whatislearnedfromonesituationtoanotherthandidcompetitiveor

ically,cooperativelearningexperiences

promotepositiveeffectivenessinthefollowingareas:Student

achievement,criticalthinkingcompetencies,positiveattitudestoward

subjectarea,

timeontask,interpersonalattractionandcohesion,socialsupport,

importanceofpeerrelationships,accuracyofperspectivetaking,group

interactionandsocialskills,lf-esteemandmutualrespect(Johnson&

Johnson,1999:67).

Vygotskyholdsthatsocialinteractionplaysanimportantrolein

thedevelopmentofcognitiveabilityandlearningisnotanindividual

determinedatleasttwodevelopmentallevelsinordertodiscoverthe

actualrelationsofthedevelopmentalprocesstolearningcapabilities.

Thefirstlevelcanbecalledtheactualdevelopmentallevelandthe

nesthezoneofproximaldevelopment

as“thedistancebetweentheactualdevelopmentlevelasdeterminedby

independentproblemsolvingandthelevelofpotentialdevelopmentas

determinedthroughproblemsolvingunderadultguidanceorin

collaborationwithmorecapablepeer.”

AccordingtoVygotsky(1978),studentsarecapableofperformingat

higherintellectuallevelswhenaskedtoworkincollaborative

iversityin

termsofknowledgeandexperiencecontributespositivelytothelearning

ingtohistheory,peerreviewwillprovidethestudents

aninstructionalenvironmentinwhichstudentsbothasreadersand

writerstointeractandthuscancontributetothedevelopmentof

writingabilities.

2.2Definitionsof“peerreview”

Peerreview,alsoknownaspeerrespon,peerrevision,peer

editing,peertutoring,peercritique,peercomment,orpeerfeedback,

Mangelsdorfsaid(1992),isacommonactivityinaprocess-oriented

writingclassduringwhichstudentsreadeachother’sdraftsandmake

suggestionsforrevisionafterthefirstdraftofthepaperiscompleted

eadthefirstdraftandprovidethe

writerwiththeircommentsorsuggestions,helpingwriterstoevaluate

andtoimprovethecontent,clarity,andorganizationoftheirpapers.

Throughsuchpeerreviewingactivities,studentwritersgetfeedback

fromtheirpeerreaders,whichhelpsthemrevitheirpaperstobemore

inningESLstudents,informalpeer-reviewssions

usuallyconsistofagroupofthreeorfourstudentsreadingor

listeningtoapeer’sdraftandcommentingonwhattheywanttoknow

moreabout,wheretheywere

confud,tersthenutheresponstodecide

advancedlevelsofinstruction,

studentscanuworksheetstoanswerquestionsconcerningthedraft’s

thesis,unity,development,focusandsoonPeerreviewhasdifferent

modes:1)oral:peersreadthepaperandthengivesuggestionsorally;2)

written:peersreadthepaperandwritecommentsandgivethembackto

thewriter;3)oralpluswritten:peersreadthepaper,writecomments

andthendiscussthecommentswiththewriter;4)computer-mediated:

peersreadpapersonlineandofferfeedbackonlinethroughdelayed-

timeorreal-timemode(Badger,2000).

2.3Previousstudiesof“peerreview”

Nowadays,peerreviewiscommonintheprocessofEFLwriting

class,andrearchhasbeguntoaddresstheeffectivenessofpeer

gpeerfeedbackintheEFL

writingclass,manyrearchersfindthatitbringsagenuinenof

audienceintoclassroom,helpsdevelopstudents’criticalreadingand

analysisskills,andencouragesstudentstofocusontheirintended

meaningbydiscussingalternativepointsofviewthatcanleadtothe

,manydifferentaspectsofpeer

feedbackhavebeeninvestigatedthroughavarietyofbothqualitative

andquantitativemethods:(a)theimpactofpeerfeedbackonsubquent

drafts;(b)theeffectsoftrainingonpeerfeedback;(c)thequalityof

peerfeedback;(d)thestudents’abilitytoidentifyareasinneedof

revision;

(e)thestudenttowardpeers’texts;(f)theanalysisoftalk

duringpeerresponssionfromtask,socialandculturalpointsof

view;(g)theaffectiveadvantagesofpeerfeedback;andthestudents’

perceptionofeffectivenessofpeerfeedback(Li,2000:77).

Intheearlystudiesaboutpeerresponontheeffectivenessof

ESLwritinggroups,Moore(1986)stresdthatpeerresponwasuful

inteachingstudentsimportantskillsthatwerecriticaltoeffective

writingandthatitwasnecessarytotrainstudentstobecomepeer

respondersandgaveanexplanationofwhatpeerresponwasandthe

followingfour-partpeptalk:1)you’recapableofcritiquingeach

other’ssays;2)itisyourresponsibilitytogiveandtakecriticism

well,rememberingthat