In the second language writing literature, there is still debate about the effects (beneficial or negative) of peer review (see, e.g., Yu & Lee, 2016). Student and teacher apprehension about peer review arises for many reasons, including cultural differences, apathy toward peer review’s merits, and not having sufficient language skills (e.g., Rollinson, 2005; Yu & Lee, 2016). If peer review is scaffolded and used often, its benefits become clear and students are able to use it effectively. This article provides a brief review of current literature, as well as an instructional technique and student feedback on their perception of peer review to reiterate how peer review can be linguistically, culturally, and cognitively effective for second language writers.

Brief Literature Review

Several themes arise within the studies that have found peer review in the ESL classroom to be effective. The first is that training improves students’ peer review effectiveness (e.g., Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Vorobel & Kim, 2014; Yu & Lee, 2016). If students understand what it is they are to look for and practice reviewing, they are less inhibited by cultural differences (e.g., saving face or not disturbing group dynamics; Chen, 2018). Second, peer review provides students a chance to have peer interactions, which is important in communicative classrooms. They must develop an understanding of how to provide constructive feedback to their peers, negotiate meaning, and reassess their own work. Students can also develop critical thinking skills about academic topics, styles, and genres as well as linguistic skills (including pragmatics) through peer review (e.g., Chen, 2018; Rollinson, 2005; Vorobel & Kim, 2014). For instance, Lundstrom and Baker (2009) found that students who provided feedback improved their own writing more than students who only received feedback. This indicates that metalinguistic abilities are exercised during peer review; students become more adept at noticing errors in peer papers and hopefully generalize this skill to their own work (see also Rollinson, 2005). A final theme in the literature is that second language writers seek out teacher-provided feedback more than peer feedback. Though this has been supported in some studies, it is also the case that students grasp feedback from peers more readily and negotiate meaning more with their peers (see, e.g., Yu & Lee, 2016).

As described in this brief literature review, providing opportunities for students to practice giving feedback, negotiate meaning with partners of various proficiency levels on different written products, and adapt to English-speaking university expectations about group work is important for language and cognitive growth. The following technique and tips provide one example of how to apply these themes to peer review.

My Technique

Near the beginning of the fall 2018 semester, my students completed a homework assignment introducing them to peer review. The assignment included watching videos at home culled from university writing centers that outline procedures, support, and best practices for peer review. Students then answered content questions associated with important procedural details and had the opportunity to generate their own questions about the process.

Peer review was completed several times throughout the semester. They had three major papers, and students engaged in peer review for the second draft of the first two papers and for two of the drafts of the last paper. For each peer review session, students were paired with a new partner. A handout was provided that included detailed questions to help students interact with the assignment goals, rubric, and their peer’s paper. As per the writing center videos, the first read-through was for global issues (e.g., content, genre specifics) and the second (third, and more) was for local issues (e.g., grammar, formatting). With ample time (typically 45–75 minutes), students reread and closely studied their peers’ papers, noticing issues and reflecting on their own writing difficulties.

Tips for Instructors

Peer review must be completed multiple times within a course; students have to build these skills, especially as nonnative speakers who may have different cultural, language, and critical knowledge skills that may hinder their ability to analyze other students’ papers and provide sufficient feedback. In my classes, students complete a peer review on paragraphs of their first few essays, on the second draft early-mid semester, and on multiple drafts of the last essay. Anecdotally, students’ ability to provide comments progresses when asked to complete peer review multiple times. Student comments often improve qualitatively, especially on content, critical thinking, and elements of English-based writing (e.g., linear requirements of the thesis and paragraphs or support). Following, I offer a few tips for instructors that I have found to encourage interaction during peer review. These activities provide students reason to deliver and discuss feedback, negotiating meaning and the purpose of their writing.

First, instructors can prohibit students from talking during the first few readings. Students often ask questions about content they do not understand and get answers from their partner but do not correct these areas of concern on the peers’ papers, leaving the author without valuable feedback to use later. Instead, students should be told that questions indicate an inadequately met assignment or language goal by the writer. If areas with questions are noted, the author can go back and correct them, and the peer understands the importance of writing all feedback on their peer’s paper. After each partner has read their peer’s paper, they are then allowed to discuss their questions, corrections, and additional comments. By waiting to ask questions, the reviewer understands an issue in the paper’s context (as a whole) and can provide more effective feedback. In addition, the reviewer and writer must negotiate meaning and correction of an issue in the context of the paper and not isolated to a particular spot (that may be inconsequential to the paper).

There are two additional interaction tips that can be included so that students approach peer review seriously. On the second peer review of the semester, I tell students that instructor input will decrease. For the last peer review, I tell students that I will not be reviewing their papers. However, after they complete peer review, I do provide feedback (without undermining peer feedback). Students interpret these acts to mean their feedback will be the only provided feedback and “worth more” to their peer. The other tip is more subtle; for each peer review, the accompanying worksheet becomes less straightforward, and students must interact with their peer’s paper on a more cognitive level. For example, on the first peer review, they may be asked whether an essay element is present (“yes” or “no”) and identify it. In the final peer review, they may be asked whether an essay element is sufficient, and, if it is not, to explain on their peer’s paper why it is not and offer suggestions for improvement.

Student Reflections

At the end of the semester, students were asked to write a reflective essay that detailed how they had improved as academic readers and writers. Many discussed peer review, indicating that they were able to create notes for writing and catch (more) errors in their papers by seeing how errors or issues with content and grammar arose in others’ essays. The realization that descriptions and examples did not always convey their intended meaning was enlightening. They recognized how to explain their ideas more clearly and/or concisely and recognized where information between their ideas and others’ ideas did not align. Many students also noted how by seeing what peers did well in their essays they could adapt these well-done aspects to their own essays. That is, some students identified the benefits of viewing others’ work and generalizing comments and ideas to their own papers, and, for two students, seeking peer reviewers for their essays outside of class. The main takeaway for students who commented on peer review was that it allowed them to think critically about writing (their own and others’), expanding on critical analysis and critical thinking skills.

Conclusion

Though the presented method and tips have not been empirically or systematically investigated, they may provide students with the necessary foundation for peer review and writing analysis. Students must first critically analyze the issues that arise in their peers’ papers, subsequently discussing and working through difficulties (interacting communicatively). This approach allows students to understand a new perspective on the assignment and negotiate meaning later. Students should also have guidelines for peer review that are appropriate to their proficiency level and cognitive demand with the necessary support to understand what is expected of them and the chance to build and refine skills over an extended period of time. Finally, it is important that students are aware that peer review skills are not confined to a one-time classroom activity. As seen in other areas of language acquisition, it is necessary that students are able to generalize skills beyond a single use (or skill; see, e.g., the discussion in Vorobel & Kim, 2014). In this case, students demonstrated generalization by reaching out to peers not in their class, self-editing, and understanding that peer review occurs at higher levels of academia as well as in the classroom.

References

Chen, T. (2018). “But I learn more bad grammars when I write to my classmates”: Acquiring academic literacies in a multicultural writing class. Journal of International Students, 8, 638–658.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30.

Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2014). Focusing on content: Discourse in L2 peer review groups. TESOL Journal, 15, 698–720.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493.