Content introduction chapter I. The importance of academic writing

Chapter II. Peer-evaluation as a branch of methodology


2.1.Enhancing academic writing skills using a peer review process
Instructors from across all levels of experience, from the early career professional to the more experienced one, often struggle with ways to provide timely, constructive and individualized feedback to students. While research suggests that students benefit from such feedback, providing it to students is often extremely labor-intensive. Engaging students in the peer review process can provide ample opportunities for students to receive immediate feedback and support in a non-threatening environment. Such feedback can be particularly beneficial in learning discipline-specific writing in psychology and the social sciences. In this chapter, we first present some of the theoretical frameworks that guide formative feedback concentrating especially on peer review as peer assisted formative assessment for writing instruction. We then focus on some of the recommendations and best practices for integrating the peer review process into the classroom. The chapter concludes by providing some activities and resources for implementing peer review in your undergraduate classroom. Peer Review as Peer Assessment for Writing Instruction Writing is a communicative endeavor. Many students struggle to communicate effectively; therefore, any instruction that aims to improve writing necessitates quality feedback to enhance student learning and skill development. Peer review activities are ideally suited for writing instruction (Dickson, Harvey, & Blackwood, 2019). Peer review is a type of peer assessment activity and that involves feedback from a peer (Panadero, Jonsson, & Alqassab, 2018). While the definition seems simple enough, it should be noted that in actuality both constructs are relatively complex͘ A ͞peer͟ may be considered an equal according to several dimensions, including age, educational attainment, or general level of mastery of the subject matter at-hand. In the context of peer assessment, feedback refers to the communicative exchange of information about performance that is provided, in this case, by and to students, in the context of a learning activity. In this chapter, peer review refers to any peer assessment activity conducted specifically for the purpose of providing information about students͛ writing performance͘ The activity of in-class peer review is intended to model itself on the formal process that occurs when professionally polished manuscripts are submitted with the author͛s intent of publication. If students are unfamiliar with the peer review process, setting aside time during class would be ideal. The timing of the peer review activity also appears to influence student learning, as the final due date impacts students͛ revision process (Baker, 2016). Baker (2016) concluded that incorporating peer review encouraged students to start writing sooner in the semester, provided the students with a platform to offer constructive feedback to their peers, and supported students in the process of substantially and meaningfully revising their work before submission of the final paper. Other findings suggest that initiating peer review earlier in the process of writing and revising is more effective than when it is implemented later, with diminishing returns on the quality of revisions for future peer reviews. Chen and Tsai (2009) suggest that peer review may serve a special function in helping students to clarify their understanding of the assignments. Such finding leave open the question of whether initiating peer review later in the course of the revision process is necessary. Object being assessed. In this chapter, we focus specifically on peer review of writing; however, other work indicates that peer review activities may benefit students͛ learning and development of other communicative skills, such as creating research posters (Orsmond, Merry, & Callaghan, 2004). Frequency and form of contact. In addition to traditional modes of peer review that involve in-class, ͞paper-and-pencil͟ review and commenting͕ in the past several decades͕ there have been advances in the use of online tools for peer review activities (Davies, 2000). Some prior work has reported success in implementing peer review in online formats (Tenório, Bittencourt, Isotani, & Silva, 2016; Yang & Tsai, 2010), including Wiki and Facebook platforms (Demirbilek, 2015; Su & Beaumont, 2010), despite challenges associated with communicating asynchronously (Zhao, Sullivan, & Mellenius, 2014; Zheng, Cui, Li, & Huang, 2018). Instructional objectives. Objectives for peer review can vary in substantial, yet subtle, ways. Gielen, Dochy, and Onghena (2011) note three main objectives for conducting activities such as peer review for learning: social control and accountability, preparation for self-regulation in lifelong learning, and active participation of all students. The goal of social control emphasizes making students accountable for making an effort to complete their work in a timely and thorough manner. The goal of self-regulation involves teaching students the skills to self-assess and self-monitor their own work. The goal of active participation should be self-explanatory, as the peer review process provides a platform for all students to contribute to dialogue around their work and learning within the context of the course. Perspectives on collaborative learning may regard these three goals as inseparable, as a major assumption of collaborative learning is that introducing a greater degree of interdependence in the assessment process reduces issues around the lack of accountability and increases opportunities for participation (Kao, 2013). In undertaking a peer review activity, it might be helpful for instructors to concentrate on a few specific things for students to focus their review around. For example, Blackwell (2018) suggests that when peer reviewing a research paper, students should make specific comments on the introduction, methods, results and discussion sections using guidelines to remind them what to do in each section. Furthermore, previous findings have indicated that students are more likely to demonstrate improvements on their revisions when multiple comments are given on the same issue (Gao, Schunn, & Yu, 2018). Function. There is some evidence to suggest that peer assessment is as reliable and valid as teacherderived assessments, particularly when the content being evaluated consists of short responses that are specific to a prompt (Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009). Furthermore, evidence suggests that peer assessments made by different students tend to be fairly reliable with one another (de Wever, van Keer, Schellens, & Valcke, 2011). While other sources of evidence have found that teacher and peer-driven assessment ratings are positively correlated with one another, some evidence also suggests fundamental differences in how criteria are interpreted, resulting in relatively low intra-class correlations between teacher and peer ratings (de Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2012; GarcíaͲMartínez͕ Cerezo, Bermúdez, & Romero, 2017). Making the process fully formative, even to the extent to which students are encouraged to incorporate the feedback received in the revision process, does not lessen the efficacy of the peer review activity (McMahon, 2010), and may even reinforce the notion that students have the agency to assert control over their learning (Patton, 2012). To assist with the overall assessment of the final product, a rubric should be used to ensure that students are meeting the benchmarks for success and ensuring all students have equal opportunity to learn (see Raffaele & Brooks, this volume). While using peer assessment for summative instructional purposes is not advisable, students should nevertheless come away from the activity understanding what would constitute criteria for a ͞publishable͟ peer reviewed article. Linking Peer Review to Other Elements of Learning The peer review process, while a useful exercise in itself, can also be linked to other elements of learning. In this section, two major aspects for establishing these instructional links are described. Alignment with other assessments. Alignment generally refers to compatibility between an assessment and the learning objectives, instruction, and other forms of assessment. Ensuring that the peer review activity, including all assessment criteria, are aligned with the curriculum is important for ensuring longterm student learning. Unfortunately, the implementation of peer review may fall short due to the lack of this critical instructional alignment. Tillema and colleagues (2011) found that the criteria used to assess the quality of the assessment (e.g., authenticity and generalizability) were often disconnected from the steps in the assessment process͘ Thus͕ in practice͕ students͛ actual involvement in the overall process was diminished due to the lack of alignment. Creating alignment between the peer review activity and curriculum is then further challenged as it becomes unclear how learning from peer review activity fits within the wider curricular plan. Scope of involvement. For the feedback rendered from a peer review activity to be effective, students need to have an understanding of the task demands of the activity. Further, they should be able to understand the extent of their involvement in meeting the task demands. Otherwise, it becomes difficult for instructors, and unfair to students, to establish criteria for objectively evaluating the quality of students͛ work and that of their peers (Sadler, 2010). Germane to all of these aspects is the need for students to have good tacit knowledge of how to conduct the peer review activity. Providing a realistic scope for the assignment and creating instructional materials that do not place too many unnecessary demands on students͛ processing capacities is thought to be most beneficial for student learning. Interaction between Peers The peer review process can also help students to navigate and negotiate working with peers. This section describes some of those factors. Participants. It may be helpful to recognize that one of the main advantages of peer review is that it provides informal support that benefits students in terms of writing instruction (Bloxham & West, 2007). When content, as opposed to the skill of writing, is the focus of the assignment, peer review may provide an opportunity for students to explain their ideas in a way that is accessible to peers and to reciprocally formulate suggestions (Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014). On the other hand, students who take part in a peer review activity are likely to have a wide-range of abilities (Vickerman, 2009), and this may affect students͛ confidence in the accuracy of the reviewer͛s feedback and ratings ;Chew, Snee, & Price, 2016; Planas Lladó et al., 2014), and satisfaction with the process (Geithner & Pollastro, 2016). Other research has found that students may be discouraged by exposure to an exemplary draft of their peers and are actually less likely to revise their current draft if they feel that it is far inferior (Cho, 2019). By contrast, students who have been led to believe that they are receiving feedback from a peer with limited writing competence actually demonstrate the greatest gains in the quality of their writing upon revision (Strijbos, Narciss, & Dünnebier, 2010). Students may also find it challenging to be critical of their classmate͛s work ;Burke Moneypenny͕ Evans͕ Θ Kraha͕ ϮϬϭϴ͖ Lindblom-Ylänne, Pihlajamäki, & Kotkas, 2006; McMahon, 2010). Being prepared to provide an independent evaluation of student work, and assuring students that the peer review activity is for formative assessment purposes only may help to reduce such concerns. For example, letting students know that their grades for peer review activity is not based on what their classmates comment on; rather, their participation and the work they put in towards their final product. Additional factors that deserve consideration include how feedback is directed, the level of privacy and anonymity in the feedback process, the form of the contact (i.e., inperson v. online), and the role of the reviewee (Gielen et al., 2011). Feedback. Prior research has found that both the content and the style of feedback can impact the quality of revisions. Cheng, Liang, and Tsai (2015) found that cognitive feedback (e.g., direct correction) was more helpful in promoting students͛ writing performance than either emotionally salient feedback (e.g., praising comments) and metacognitive feedback (e.g., reflecting comments). Encouraging students to focus on providing direct and specific recommendations for improvement may have the most positive impact on students͛ writing͘ Feedback can range in the amount of scope that it covers. The scope of the feedback is likely to affect its implementation. While a more local level (i.e., surface-level) is defined as utilizing a narrow focus during evaluation (e.g., focusing solely on grammar, spelling, punctuation), a global level (i.e., meaning-level) aims to provide a more holistic examination of the performance or product (Nelson & Schunn, 2007). Prior research has found that within peer review activities, local feedback may be more likely to implemented; however, when the feedback is focused on substantive issues, it is associated with revisions that improve the quality of the written work (Patchan et al., 2016). In another study, Strijbos and colleagues (2010) found that students demonstrated the greatest improvements in the quality of their writing upon revision when they were provided concise feedback over more elaborated feedback. Thus, student reviewers should be encouraged to be both concise and specific in pointing towards locations in the text that need additional scrutiny and should focus on issues that impact the meaning of the text. Helping techniques. The language used in providing feedback can influence how likely a student is to benefit from the interaction. In general, it may consist of praise, negative language, or mitigating language paired with suggestions. Negative language includes criticism that is not constructive; students should be encouraged to avoid such language as it may have a detrimental effect on motivation and performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Praise and mitigating language are often similar; however, mitigating language may also include some aspect of constructive criticism and it is often used to make the criticism sound less abrasive or off-putting (Nelson & Schunn, 2009). Peer review, peer feedback, peer evaluation Peer review, feedback, and evaluation are intended to be used interchangeably. Peer evaluation is a term used widely in the education field for evaluating another individual’s work that is of similar aptitude as the creator. Peer review has been accepted as the same meaning in the education world, but has multiple other meanings as well, so it is important to understand that it is meant to be the same as peer evaluation. Peer feedback is used in the same place as peer review or evaluation. Peer feedback is intended to be a more appealing way to say “peer evaluation” to students in the classroom, because often times, students’ nerves take over when they hear the term evaluation. Peer Evaluation, Writing, and Students’ Perceptions Research indicates (Jensen & Fischer, 2005; Cho & Cho, 2005; Lai, 2010; AlJamal, 2009; Crossman & Kite, 2012) that through peer evaluation, students produce better writing and perceive that their writing skills improved. Additionally, peer feedback was deemed a helpful addition to the learning environment (Jensen & Fischer, 2005; Cho & Cho, 2005; Lai, 2010; Al-Jamal, 2009; Crossman & Kite, 2012). Studies related to writing skill improvement and students’ perceptions are discussed in the following section of this literature review. If students understand what writing should look like and are provided opportunities to give and receive feedback on writing, their attitudes about writing will improve as well as their perceptions about the quality of their writing and the peer evaluation process. Peer Evaluation Improves Writing Skills Several studies (Cho & Cho, 2005; Lai, 2010; Al-Jamal, 2009; Crossman & Kite, 2012) relate improved writing skills to peer evaluation. Jensen and Fischer (2005) studied a group of students in a construction management program at the university level and found that students who were involved in the process of peer evaluation in writing developed better written communication skills than their peers who only received feedback from the instructor or the teaching assistant. This improvement does not simply come from students providing comments on strengths of their peers’ writing; comments on weaknesses within writing also helped improve writing skills (Cho & Cho, 2005). Not only did comments directed at weaknesses improve writing, but according to Lai (2010), scores of students’ written work showed their writing improved the most with peer evaluation specifically. In 2009, Al-Jamal found that students having the ability to respond to one another’s writing in such a positive manner “enhanced the development of their writing skill” (p. 13). Also, face-to-face peer editing improves the quality of revised written work (Crossman and Kite, 2012). What these studies indicate is that peer review improves written communication, both strengths and weaknesses of writing produce positive effects, and revised work improves; therefore, so did students’ writing. Students’ Perceptions of Peer Evaluation Are Positive A second area of investigation is whether students connected peer evaluation of writing to a positive classroom experience. Students found the received feedback helpful (Gielen, Lies, Filip, & Onghena, 2010) and valued both face-to-face and computergenerated evaluation of their writing (Lai, 2010). According to Wilkins, Shin, & Ainsworth (2009), students can gain confidence in their writing when they receive positive feedback from their peers; thus, their attitudes about the process of peer evaluation improve. Ozogul and Sullivan (2007) identify that because students felt that they were learning from their peers through peer evaluation that their attitudes about the process also became positive. In the study completed by Kastra, Tollefson, and Gilbert (1987), the researchers found that the students who were a part of the experimental group and participated in peer evaluation commented more frequently that they enjoyed sharing their writing with their peers and felt that their writing was improving. Kastra et al. (1987) even argue that students’ attitudes about writing can be improved through performing peer evaluation in the classroom. These studies support Kastra et al.’s idea that students value peer evaluation as a tool to improve their writing. Peer Evaluation and the Information Learned Another area of investigation is how peer evaluation may provide students with a way to learn about content in class. Students learn content from their peers’ work if given the opportunity to provide feedback to their peers in the classroom. Research by Yang (2010); Thomas, Martin, and Pleasants (2011); Gielen, Lies, Filip, & Onghena (2010); Kelly (2003); Ozogul & Sullivan (2007); and Vickerman (2009) connects learning and peer evaluation. Yang (2010) indicates that, following peer evaluations, in students’ final drafts, they included new information along with old information in their writing. When completing a study in an outdoor education classroom, Thomas, Martin, and Pleasants (2011) found that peer-assessment helped students learn more about outdoor leadership. Retention of learning is improved as indicated in one study that found that students providing feedback to one another had greater longer-term learning effects versus the traditional classroom lecture and testing method (Gielen, Lies, Filip, & Onghena, 2010, p. 157). Transfer of learning to new areas is also supported as was indicated in 2003, when Kelly stated, “I have seen students use many of the same skills that they have gained in the technical assignments while doing peer editing on more expressive and creative language arts assignments” (p. 375). Preservice teachers indicated that reviewing a peer’s lesson plan helped improve their own (Ozogul & Sullivan, 2007). Also, based on students’ responses, students felt that they learned more about writing skills through peer feedback than they would have in a traditional lecture and testing classroom experience (Todd & Hudson, 2007). According to Vickerman (2009), a majority of students agreed that their knowledge about a given subject improved due to peer feedback. These studies reveal that peer evaluation provides another opportunity for students to extend learning. Students are able to read one another’s work and provide feedback to peers. That feedback ultimately gives students the ability to critically think about the topic to provide an accurate response to the peer while extending their own learning. Research examined in this literature review shows that peer evaluation is an important element in improving writing skills and increasing students’ learning in the classroom. Also, students’ attitudes towards peer evaluation and writing is positive, and that there is a constant cycle between practicing effective evaluation and improving students’ attitudes. Studies involving writing, students’ attitudes, and information learned suggest that peer evaluation is an effective classroom tool that supports student learning. While current research connects learning and writing improvement to peer evaluation, a gap in the research exists to explain students’ perceptions on writing in college following the practice of using peer evaluation in a high school classroom. The present study aims to fill that gap in research. The purpose of this study is to understand how peer review and feedback influences the preparation of high school seniors for college-level writing. Writing is a system for interpersonal communication using various styles of language
(Jalaludin, 2011). It plays a fundamental role in our personal and professional lives. In
academia, writing has become central as a measure for academic success. Students attempt to
gain more control over improvement of English writing skill (Hamid, 2012).As writing
process approach has changed the way of teaching writing from students' final products to the
process of writing, peer feedback has come to take an important part in writing instruction.
Traditionally, teachers are only one who has high knowledge to provide feedback to students'
writing. But nowadays, peer feedback has been known as a critical technique for improving
students' writing all around the world. A growing body of research has recommended the use
of peer feedback because of its social, cognitive, and affective benefits (Hinkel, 2004;
Lundstorm & Baker, 2009; Min, 2008; Pol et al., 2008; and, Storch, 2004) because good
feedback helps students understand their subject area and gives them clear guidance on how
to improve their learning(Orsmond et al., 2013).
Feedback
Feedback is a key element in language learning. It can promote minimal or deep learning.
Hattie and Timperely (2007) state that feedback is "information provided by an agent
regarding some aspects of one's task performance". (p.81). Narciss (2008) also defines
feedback as "all post-response information that is provided to a learner to inform the learner
on his or her actual state of learning or performance". (p.127). what is clear from these
definitions is that feedback is designed to provide an understanding of performance through
offering guidance on the knowledge that they possess. One of the factors which seems to be
of great importance in dealing with feedback is that it helps students to reconstruct their
knowledge or skill to what is desired. Mory (2003) discusses four perspectives on how
feedback supports learning. First, feedback can be considered as an incentive for increasing
response rate and/ or accuracy. Second, feedback can be regarded as a reinforcer that
automatically connects responses to prior stimuli (focused on correct responses). Third,
feedback can be considered as information that learners can use to validate or change a
previous response (focused on erroneous responses). Finally, feedback can be regarded as the
provision of scaffolds to help students construct internal schemata and analysis their learning
processes. A part from these perspectives on how feedback supports learning, the type of
feedback varies considerably as well. Nelson and schunn (2009) identified two types of
feedback, namely; cognitive and affective. In cognitive feedback, more attention is given to
the content of the work and involves summarizing, specifying and explaining aspects of the
work under review. Affective feedback concentrates on the quality of works and uses
affective language to bestow praise ("well written") and criticism ("badly written"), or uses
non-verbal expressions, such as facial expression gestures and emotional tones. Moreover,
Nicole and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) suggested seven principles for feedback practice. They
claimed that good feedback practice:
1- Helps clarify what good performance is (goal, criteria, expected standards);
2- Facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection)in learning 3- Delivers high-quality information to students about their learning;
4- Encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
5- Encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
6- Provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
7- Provides information to students that can be used to help shape teaching. (p.205).
Based on these principles, it is clear what feedback is trying to achieve. Sadler (1998) asserts
that good feedback lies at the heart of good pedagogy with its source (i.e. teachers or peers).
It must be stated that various kinds of feedback have been used in the class namely; peer
feedback, conferencing, and written teacher feedback. Some innovative methods also are
recommended in the class for learning such as taped commentaries and computer- based
respond. It is important to mention that based on the way these types of feedbacks are given,
their effect can be either positive or negative (Musa et al., 2012).Walker (2009)
acknowledges that feedback must be usable by students. He points out that to be usable by
students, peer feedback must be designed to help students to reduce the gap in their
performance and look beyond the assignment just submitted to future work. The following
section increasingly suggests that peer feedback plays a fundamental role in the kind of
scaffolding that students need to reduce or close gaps in their learning process.
Peer feedback
Peer feedback, which is referred to under different names such as peer response, peer review,
peer editing, and peer evaluation, can be defined as "use of learners as sources of information
and interactants for each other is such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities
normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and
critiquing each other's drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing" (Liu
and Hansen, 2002:1). The rationale of peer feedback is explained by Vygotsky's sociocultural
theory. Vygotsky (1978) claims that mind develops through one's interaction with the world
around him/her. He emphasize that learning is not an individual activity; but rather a
cognitive activity that the nature of learning shifts the focus on learning from individual to
the interaction within a social context. Thereby, peer interaction is cardinal to the
improvement of students' learning, because it allows students to construct knowledge through
social sharing and interaction (Liu et al., 2001).
Peer feedback and writing
In the past two decades, feedback has been increasingly used in English as a second/ foreign
language (ESL/EFL) writing instruction (Zhao, 2010). Some researchers profess that peer
feedback has a pivotal role in improving student writing skills and learning achievement
(Topping et al., 2000; Plutsky & Wilson, 2004). Richer (1992) compared the effects two
kinds of feedback, peer directed and teacher feedback, on first year college students' writing
proficiency in an experimental study with 87 participants. The result indicated that using peer
feedback provides a feasible method college student to enhance their writing skills and
improve their learning achievement. Lin et al., (2001) in their study found that specific peer Journal of Studies in Education
ISSN 2162-6952
2013, Vol. 3, No. 4
www.macrothink.org/jse
94
feedback and critical peer feedback may greatly facilitate students improving their writing
skills. In addition, in their quasi-experimental study comparing three methods for teaching
student writing, Plutsky and Wilson (2004) found that peer feedback helped students become
proficient writers. More importantly, most students view peer feedback as effective as the
instructors. Jacobs et al., (1998) found nearly the same percentage 93% of their EFL students
in Hong Kong and Taiwan said they would like to receive peer feedback as one kind of
feedback. According to Wakabayashi (2013) through peer feedback, learners engage in
critical evaluation of peer text for the purpose of exchanging help for revision. Because
learners can learn more about writing and revision by reading other's drafts critically and
their awareness of what makes writing successful and effective can be enhanced and, lastly
learners eventually become more autonomous writers (Maarof et al., 2011).
Advantages of peer feedback
Peer feedback has been advocated in several studies for a number of benefits. For example,
Hyland (2000) mentions that peer feedback encourages student to participate in the classroom
activity and make them less passively teacher- dependent. Yarrow and Topping (2001:262)
claim that peer feedback plays a pivotal role in "increased engagement and time spent on-task,
immediacy and individualization of help, goal specification, explaining, prevention of
information processing overload, promoting, modeling and reinforcement". Moreover, using
peer feedback can lead less writing apprehension and more confidence as well as establish a
social context for writing. Yang et al., (2006) also add that peer feedback is beneficial in
developing critical thinking, learner autonomy and social interaction among students. More
importantly, the practice of peer feedback allows students to receive more individual
comments as well as giving reviewers the opportunity to practice and develop different
language skills (Lundstrom and Baker, 2009).
Disadvantages of peer feedback
Despite its perceived benefits, some researchers found that peer feedback were viewed with
skepticism and produced few benefits. A number of studies challenged the strong positive
comments about peer review and cautioned that some peers are likely to comment on surface
errors and give advice that does not help revision. In doing research on the impact of peer and
teacher feedback on writing of secondary school EFL students in Hong Kong, Tsui and
Ng(2000) discovered that all students prefer teacher feedback than peer feedback. The main
reason is that they assume teacher is the one who is qualified to provide them with useful
comments. So the teacher is defined as the only source of authority for giving the suitable
comments. Saito and Fujita (2004) report that a number of studies indicate that there are a
number of biases associated with peer feedback including friendship, reference,
purpose(development vs. grading) feedback (effects of negative feedback on future
performance), and collusive (lack of differentiation) bias. Another issue of concern is that
most peer responses focused on product rather than the processes of writing, and many
students in L2 contexts focused on sentence- level errors (local errors) rather than on the
content and ideas (global errors) (Storch, 2004).