peer response groups in esl writing classes: how much impact on revision?

20
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 3 (3), 257-276 (1994) Peer Response Groups in ESL Writing Classes: How Much Imp&t on Revision? ULLA CONNOR KAREN ASENAVAGE Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of peer responses on subsequent revisions, comporing comments from the teacher with other sources. The revisions in essays from two groups of freshmen ESL students were evaluated over several drafts. The peer collaboration was audiotaped; written comments by the teacher or others were noted. Faigley and Witte’s (1981) taxonomy of revisions wos used to identify the types of revisions: surface or text-based. There are six specific types of revisions in each of these broad categories. The results show that the students made many revisions but that few of these were the result of direct peer group response. Students who made the greatest number of changes made predominantly more text-based changes. Students who mode fewer changes generally mode more surface changes. The results of this,research raise questions regarding group formo- tion and types of modeling done for group work. Peer collaboration is used in first language (Ll) writing classes at various stages of the writing process, from the generation of ideas to the final editing. The current popularity of peer response groups or writing groups is due to an emphasis on processes in the teaching of composition (Emig, 1971; Plower & Hayes, 1981; Zamel, 1987), an emphasis on the social nature of writing (Nystrand, 1986, 1989), and an influence from the theoretical frameworks of collaborative learning in writing (Bruffee, 1973, 1984; Elbow & Belanoff, 1989; Gere, 1987). Writing groups are also used in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing classes. Reservations about the direct adoption of writing groups from the Ll practice, however, have been raised. Allaei and Connor (1990) write: Instructors of non-native English-speaking students often find that using collabora- tive groups effectively in heterogeneous classes of students from a variety of We would like to thank Mary Boyd, Susan Mayberry, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of this journal for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Ulla Connor, Department of English, Cavanaugh Hall 502L. Indiana University, 425 University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5140. 257

Upload: ulla-connor

Post on 02-Sep-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 3 (3), 257-276 (1994)

Peer Response Groups in ESL Writing Classes:

How Much Imp&t on Revision?

ULLA CONNOR KAREN ASENAVAGE

Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of peer responses on subsequent revisions, comporing comments from the teacher with other sources. The revisions in essays from two groups of freshmen ESL students were evaluated over several drafts. The peer collaboration was audiotaped; written comments by the teacher or others were noted. Faigley and Witte’s (1981) taxonomy of revisions wos used to identify the types of revisions: surface or text-based. There are six specific types of revisions in each of these broad categories. The results show that the students made many revisions but that few of these were the result of direct peer group response. Students who made the greatest number of changes made predominantly more text-based changes. Students who mode fewer changes generally mode more surface changes. The results of this,research raise questions regarding group formo- tion and types of modeling done for group work.

Peer collaboration is used in first language (Ll) writing classes at various stages of the writing process, from the generation of ideas to the final editing. The current popularity of peer response groups or writing groups is due to an emphasis on processes in the teaching of composition (Emig, 1971; Plower & Hayes, 1981; Zamel, 1987), an emphasis on the social nature of writing (Nystrand, 1986, 1989), and an influence from the theoretical frameworks of collaborative learning in writing (Bruffee, 1973, 1984; Elbow & Belanoff, 1989; Gere, 1987).

Writing groups are also used in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing classes. Reservations about the direct adoption of writing groups from the Ll practice, however, have been raised. Allaei and Connor (1990) write:

Instructors of non-native English-speaking students often find that using collabora- tive groups effectively in heterogeneous classes of students from a variety of

We would like to thank Mary Boyd, Susan Mayberry, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors

of this journal for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Ulla Connor, Department of English,

Cavanaugh Hall 502L. Indiana University, 425 University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5140.

257

Page 2: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

258 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

cultural backgrounds, with mixed language abilities, is often a daunting prospect: differing communication styles may lead to conflict among “collaborative” groups’ members and differing notions about conventions of “good” writing may lead to quite different responses to writing from the responses an Ll reader might provide.

(P. 20)

Allaei and Connor suggest that sociolinguistic differences in expectations concerning the amount of talk, the role of speaker and listener, and politeness strategies can contribute to discomfort in multicultural peer response groups. In addition, based on findings from contrastive rhetoric research, Allaei and

Connor suggest:

Culturally-preferred conventions manifest themselves, not only in the final products, but in processes in which students engage while writing. Classrooms are impacted because of different cultural orientations concerning “appropriate” topics and audiences for writing and attitudes toward collaboration (coauthoring, workshopping, peer reviewing, and social meaning making). (p. 24)

Carson and Nelson (1994) highlight two cross-cultural issues in the dynamics of ESL writing groups: (1) individual versus collective goals of groups, and (2) “ingroup” versus “outgroup” relationships. They maintain that ESL students from backgrounds with collectivist goals (such as Japan and the People’s Republic of China) expect to collaborate in order to benefit the group, while Westerners’ concept of group work is to serve the needs of the individuals. Furthermore, students from these cultures emphasize harmony, cooperation, and consensus when working with ingroup individuals but do not exhibit similar behaviors with outgroup students. Carson and Nelson maintain that “it is time to take a look at the group dynamics of multicultural writing groups and the effects of these dynamics on the writing development of nonnative speakers” (p. 29).

Empirical research on ESL writing groups has begun. Nelson and Murphy’s (1992) research on one writing group over six different collaborative sessions was the first empirical ESL research on writing groups. Four students participated in the writing group; the students were from Chile, Peru, Taiwan, and Colombia. The research focused on the types of comments that students made about each other’s writing and the kinds of group dynamics that existed among the students. Coded using Fanselow’s (1987) classroom observation instrument, FOCUS, 73% of the total number of student comments were on “study of language,” 12% were on “procedure,” 9% were on “life personal comments,” 3% were on “life general knowledge, ” and 2.3% were on “format,” with the remaining percent- age classified as unclear comments. The study found that the group was not an ideal community of “writers helping writers” (p. 13). Four roles emerged: the attacker, the weakest writer, the best writer, and the mediator or the facilitator. These roles influenced the group members’ reactions to the group and their own feelings about themselves as writers. The negative comments of the “attacker”

Page 3: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 259

dominated and reinforced the group’s role designations. The weakest writer did not have a chance to affect change.

Nelson and Murphy (1993) report a follow-up analysis, which examined whether the students in the group made changes in their drafts based upon responses by their peers. The researchers analyzed the transcripts as well as the student papers to see if students had revised in light of their peers’ comments. The use of peer comments in the students’ essays was rated on a scale of 1 to 5. The results showed that the students made some changes; the average was 3.2. The extent of the changes was influenced by the type of group interaction; in “cooperative interaction,” students made more changes than in “defensive” interactions.

Using DiPardo and Freedman’s (1988) categorization of research on small groups -sociological, sociolinguistic, and process-product-it appears that most second language (L2) research has focused on the sociolinguistic and sociological issues related to behavior in groups, such as verbal and nonverbal interactions in groups. The process-product paradigm, which correlates measur- able group processes with measurable outcomes, has received little attention with the exception of Nelson and Murphy’s (1993) research.

The focus of the research described in this article was on the types of revisions made by students as a result of peer response as measured by a detailed text analysis. We were also interested in ascertaining interrelationships of influences from peer comments, teacher comments, and other writing help.

THE STUDY

Research Questions, Methodology, and Participants There were two major research questions: (a) What types of revisions were made based on peer comments? and (b) what was the relative impact of peer responses as compared to responses from the teacher and others? The research approach used was a case study with text analysis.

Two peer response groups, four students in each, participated. Students were enrolled in an ESL freshman writing class at a large, urban midwestern university. The students were placed in the class based on a placement test, which includes a multiple-choice language test, an oral interview, and an essay. They were given two writing prompts to choose from and were allowed to write for 45 minutes. The scoring was done holistically by two raters on a four-point scale. The students in the study were tested in a 9-month period in 1991. ‘ho students received a score of 2, which placed them in a remedial writing course before taking the ESL freshman writing course. All other students scored 3 on the essay test and were placed directly in the ESL freshman writing course. Hence, at the time of the study, all the students were considered to have an equal language proficiency.

Page 4: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

260 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

There were four students in each writing group. Group 1 consisted of one male student from Russia and three female students from Hungary, Japan, and Eritrea. Group 2 included four undergraduate students, two male students and two female students. Their native countries were India, Bhutan, and China. Table 1 summarizes information about the students, including their lengths of residence in the U.S., prior English instruction, and major fields of study.

Setting The students were enrolled in a 15week writing course, which met two times a week for 75 minutes. There were 26 students in the class.

In the course, students progressed through four “writing phases,” which were included in the final portfolio. Phase 1 included three completed essays with revisions, peer collaboration, and editing. One essay was chosen from this phase for the portfolio. In Phase 2 the students revised a narrative essay into an expository essay form. Phase 3 required completion of an essay with the theme, “Influences on Me as a Learner.” This essay was to include at least two outside sources. Phase 4 consisted of a student’s statement describing his or her evolution as a writer throughout the course indicating input from peers, the instructor and/or other sources. Students were not given grades on individual essays during the semester but, instead, were graded on the final portfolio.

Students were placed in peer collaborative groups based on a holistically rated, timed writing sample given at the beginning of the semester, cultural

TABLE 1 Profiles of Students in the Study

Gender Ll Length of Residence Prior

in U.S. English Major

Group 1

Alexander Male Russian

Lilla Female Hungarian

Satoko Female Japanese

Senayet Female Tigrinya

1 year

1 year

2 years

3 years

2 years Physical Therapy

4 years Restaurant 84

Hotel Management

8 years Business

5 years Nursing

Group 2

Tushar

Shailini

Nima

Karen

Male Gujarati

Female Hindi

Male Dzongkhta

Female Chinese

V2 year

3 years

1 year

3 years

8 years Nuclear Medicine

Technology

18 years Computer

Technology

15 years Biology

5 years Accounting

Page 5: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 261

background, and gender. Seven groups with three to five students in each were formed. The groups remained constant throughout the semester for effective and consistent collaboration within the groups.

The students were introduced to methods of collaborative response through modeling. Modeling was first done by the instructor, followed by additional practice by the whole class. Students were given a “peer review sheet” to be completed in Phases 1 and 2 (see Appendix A). Students were expected to have developed their own guidelines for collaboration in Phases 3 and 4. They were encouraged to be supportive, helpful, and to overlook surface errors such as grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

The period during which the study took place was Phase 3. The students were required to read outside sources while they developed the topic, “Influences on Me as a Learner.” The students in both groups participated in three consecutive collaborative sessions during this phase. The first session was a brainstorming session, in which students discussed and shared articles they had read. Each student wrote a first draft following this session. In the second session, which was the focal point of this study, each student read his or her draft aloud, soliciting oral peer comments. After revisions to the first draft, students participated in a third collaboration to share and/or solicit additional group assistance before turning in their drafts for the instructor’s comments. After the third session and the teacher’s comments on the second draft, the students wrote a third draft. Sessions 1 and 2 took 1 hour each. In the third session, the students had only 20 minutes for collaboration.

Data Gathering, Data Analysis, and Results Each of the three collaborative sessions were audiotaped. The audiotapes were transcribed, and copies were made of each draft of the students’ essays (see Appendix B for sample transcripts from group discussions).

The students’ first drafts, which they read aloud in the second session, were compared with the second drafts in terms of revisions. Revisions were also analyzed between Drafts 2 and 3. The source of each revision was noted as either group (from tape transcriptions), teacher (from written comments), or self/others (from written comments by other readers such as tutors in the writing center or revisions initiated by the writer).

All revisions were marked and coded using Faigley and Witte’s (1981) taxonomy of revisions. This taxonomy categorizes revisions into two types: surface changes and text-based changes. The taxonomy is shown in Table 2. As further explanation of the coding, additions add a word or a phrase without changing the overall meaning of the sentence. “You pay two dollars” can be revised to “You pay a two-dollar entrance fee” (Faigley & Witte, 1981, p. 403). Deletions omit a word or a phrase but do not change the meaning of the sentence. For instance, “several dirty-looking children” is revised to read “several dirty children. ” Substitutions exchange words with a synonym: “A big house” changes to “A large house.” Permutations are rearrangements of words or

Page 6: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

U. Connor and K. Asenavage

TABLE 2

Taxonomy of Revision Changes

Formal

Changes

Surface Changes Text-Based Changes

Meaning Preserving Microstructure Macrostructure

Changes Changes Changes

Spelling Additions Additions Additions Tense, Number, Deletions Deletions Deletions

and Modality Substitutions Substitutions Substitutions Abbreviations Permutations Permutations Permutations Punctuation Distributions Distributions Distributions Format Consolidations Consolidations Consolidations

Note. From “Analyzing Revision,” by L. Faigley and S. Witte, 1981, College Composi- tion and Communication, 32, p. 403. Copyright 1981 by National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted by permission.

phrases: “With the exception of bananas, he likes most fruit” becomes “He likes most fruit, with the exception of bananas.” Distributions are revisions in which one segment is divided into more than one: “I thought that since I had studied so hard, I should have at least passed the test!” becomes, “I should have at least passed the test. I studied hard enough!” Consolidations, the opposite of distributions, combine two or more segments into one. “The student was male. He was American.” becomes “The student was an American male.”

Text-based changes are divided into similar subcategories. The difference, however, is that revisions affect a group of sentences, paragraphs, or the entire text. Micro-text-based changes do not alter the summary of a text, they only rework sentences and paragraphs. Macro-text-based changes, on the other hand, change the overall summary of the text, changing the direction or the gist of the idea presented. Entire new paragraphs or sections may be added. Paragraphs may also be deleted, rearranged, or combined. Finally, one idea-originally presented as a paragraph-may be distributed over several paragraphs.

In order to establish rater reliability, we first negotiated interpretations about the coding of randomly selected student texts. Then we selected and indepen- dently coded a sample consisting of 10% of the data, achieving almost complete agreement. Finally, one of us analyzed the rest of the data with the agreed coding procedure.

Revisions Resulting From Peer Collaboration-Draft 2 The first research question dealt with the types of revisions that resulted from peer comments: “What types of revisions were made based on peer comments?” To answer this question, the types of changes made in Draft 2 were examined. We analyzed the distribution of revisions across the subcategories of Faigley and Witte’s (1981) taxonomy. Figure 1 summarizes the results for each group in the broad categories of surface and text-based revisions.’

Page 7: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 263

90

80

70

20

10

0

l-l 26(32'S)

48(62%)

Group 1 Group 2

Figure 1. Numbers of Revisions by Group and Type in Draft 2

In Draft 2, Group 1 made 81 revisions altogether while Group 2 made 78 revisions. While the total number of revisions in Draft 2 was similar for both groups, an analysis of the types of revisions made by each group reveals differences. Group 2 had a greater number of text-based revisions, 48 (or 62%), as opposed to 26 (or 32%) text-based revisions made by Group 1.

Concerning the effect of peer comments in Draft 2, only three revisions (or 4%) of the total number of revisions made by Group 1 were a direct result of peer collaboration, while Group 2 had nine revisions (or 12%) occurring as a direct result of peer collaboration, as Figure 2 shows.

Of the changes made as a result of the collaboration, Group 2 had a larger percentage of text-based changes than Group 1. In other words, peer comments in Group 2 affected revisions at the text level rather than at the surface level. The students in Group 2 commented more on textual features such as the placement of a thesis statement. Group 1, however, addressed primarily surface features such as maillmale, unspokeablelunspoken, and to abroadlabroad (see Appendix B for sample comments).

Page 8: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

264

W-

80 --

70 -

% .s! @J -- 3 2 50 -- % b .a 40 -- e

g 30 --

m --

10 --

0 -7

U. Connor and K. Asenavage

78 mm

Group 1 Group 2

Figure 2. Types of Revisions by Group ond Source in Draft 2

Revision Changes by Source-Draft 3 The second research question was: “What was the relative impact of peer responses as compared to responses from teachers and others?” To answer it, we analyzed types of revision changes by the source: changes caused by the group, teacher, and self/others. The analysis covers changes from Draft 2 to Draft 3. The teacher’s comments were written on Draft 2 after the students had had an opportunity to revise their drafts based on peer comments. Hence, Draft 3 was studied in order to determine whether further revision was the result of the peer group, teacher comments, or self/others.2

In Draft 3, Group 1 made 122 changes and Group 2 made 232 changes. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of revisions by group and type. The numbers suggest a significant difference in how the students approached the revision process. This could be explained by the amount of talk in the groups as well as the type of comments. As was pointed out earlier, Group 2 commented on textual features more than Group 1 and, in the third draft, had a larger number of text-based revisions than Group 1.

Page 9: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 265

240

220

200

180

80

60

40

20

0

-7

Group 1 Group 2

Figure 3. Number of Revisions by Group ond Type in Draft 3

Figure 4 summarizes the types of revisions by source for each group. In Group 1, the percentage of teacher comments resulting in revision was 37%, self/ others was 57%, while direct group comments affected 6% of the changes. In Group 2, teacher comments resulted in 35% of the revisions, self/other in 64%, and 1% of the changes were made as a result of the peer group.

Interestingly, however, in both groups, revisions made as a result of teacher comments were primarily surface changes: 72% in Group 1 and 82% in Group 2.

Discussion of Results ‘lb summarize the results related to the first research question, we note that although the students in both groups made a large number of revisions, a relatively small number was identified as resulting from peer responses: a total of ten revisions in both groups on Drafts 2 and 3. However, the types of revisions

Page 10: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

266 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

Figure 4. Number of Revisions by Group ond Source in Draft 3

made in the two groups differed. As a result of peer comments, Group 1, who commented more on surface errors, made primarily surface-level changes. Group 2, who commented more on text-based features, made primarily text-

based revisions. Concerning the second research question, we found that the effect of peer

comments in both groups was small. The results showed that in both Groups 1 and 2, only about 5% of the total revisions resulted from peer comments. Why was the effect of the student peer comments so small? Was there variation among the students in the groups? We decided to examine revisions made by individual students.

There was great variation among the students in terms of numbers and types of revisions (see Tables C-l and C-2 in Appendix C for the raw data). When revisions in Drafts 2 and 3 are combined, the results show that in Group 1, Lilla made the least number of total changes (16). None resulted from the peer group comments; 94% were teacher prompted, and 6% owed to self/others. Of Lilla’s changes, all but two were surface changes. Alexander made 57 changes. Of these, 2% were the result of group comments, 16% from teacher comments, and 82% were self/other-based revisions. Of Alexander’s total changes, 93% were surface changes, and 7% were text-based changes. Senayet made a similar number of revisions (62). None of these were a direct result of peer group

Page 11: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 267

comments; 34% were teacher-prompted revisions, while 66% were revisions made owing to self/others. Of Senayet’s revisions, 40% were surface revisions, and 60% were text-based revisions. Satoko made the greatest number of changes (68) in this group: 10% were as a result of teacher comments, and 90% were the result of self/other. Of Satoko’s revisions, 22% were surface revisions, and 78% were text-based.

In Group 2, Nima made the least number of total changes (69). Tushar (70) and Shailini (73) exhibited similar numbers of changes. Nima had the highest percentage of revisions owing to peer comments. Self/other-prompted revisions were greater than 50% for the following three students: Nima (72), Tushar (56), and Shailini (89). Karen made the most changes (98). None of these were revisions based on peer group collaboration. Of her changes, 12% resulted from teacher comments, and the remaining 88% owed to self/other; 28% were surface changes, while 72% were text-based changes.

In summary, the students who made the least number of changes in each group (Lilla, Group 1; Nima, Group 2) also made the greatest number of surface changes and made the greatest number of revisions as a result of teacher comments. The students who made the greatest number of changes (Karen and Satoko) also made the least number of changes or no changes as a result of teacher comments. Instead, these students made the greatest number of self/ other revisions: Karen (90%) and Satoko (88%). An interesting observation is that both of these students (Karen and Satoko) had taken WOOl, the remedial writing course, which emphasizes process-based collaborative writing. It may be that students who take WOO1 transfer strategies of collaboration into subsequent writing classes.

Overall, the results show that approximately 5% of the revisions resulted from peer comments, 35% could be described as resulting from teacher comments, and about 60% of the revisions occurred as a result of self/others. It is noteworthy that the revisions based upon teacher comments were primarily surface level.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The small impact on revisions from peers’ comments in the two groups in the study is disappointing. We are afraid that the ESL writing teacher in the study, and other writing classes in our program and elsewhere, may expect too much from peer response groups without understanding how effective collaboration works among ESL writers. Based on the results of the study, we are reconsider- ing some practices in writing groups in the ESL classes in our program. First, the concepts of revision at the text-based and surface levels should be clarified in both the teacher’s and the students’ minds. Second, although peer response is modeled early in the semester and practiced throughout, more extensive and specific peer response training with follow-up should be implemented. Third,

Page 12: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

268 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

while the opportunity to read aloud one’s paper in the group is useful, we think that peer responses might be more text-based if students were required to make copies of their papers for group members. Students could also be asked to comment on each other’s papers prior to coming to the writing group. Fourth, the constitution of group memberships is important for effective collaboration. In the past, we have assigned students to groups based on writing samples, language background, and gender. The results of our study show that students’ previous experience with collaborative activities may be a good indicator of how well they respond to and benefit from each other’s writing. Fifth, we think that

the teacher’s involvement in the groups’ work throughout the semester is important. The teacher should not assume that groups are working smoothly but needs to keep groups on task.

Our study suggests the difficulty in applying the “process-product” model for studying groups. In the analysis using the Witte and Faigley (1981) taxonomy to analyze revisions, we were limited to noting a comment on one draft and determining whether a revision was made on the next draft. It is difficult to identify the source of revisions over multiple drafts and extended periods of time. Considering the small number of changes we found, we agree with DiPardo and Freedman (1988) that the long-term benefits of collaboration are difficult to assess:

Even when no one-to-one relationship can be found between talk in groups and improvement on an individual piece of writing, learning might still be occurring in groups. Alternatively, even if a writer makes measurable improvement on a piece of writing that can be connected to talk in a group session, the writer may not have learned a concept that he or she can apply to a new writing situation. Little is known about what is involved in transferring writing skills from one task to the

next. (pp. 121-122)

Future research might examine the relationship between comments and subsequent revision through students’ think-aloud protocols while they are revising or through extensive interviews with students. These think-aloud protocols and interviews would give a clearer picture of students’ decision- making strategies while revising and would provide important information about students’ perceptions about the relative importance of comments by peers, teachers, and others.

Notes

1. Tables C-l to C-4 in Appendix C show a detailed distribution of revisions across the subcategories.

2. Tables C-l to C-4 in Appendix C show a detailed distribution by source across the subcategories.

Page 13: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 269

REFERENCES

Allaei, S.K., & Connor, U.M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in

writing classrooms. The Writing Insrrucror, 10, 19-28.

Bruffee, K.A. (1973). Collaborative learning: Some practical models. CollegeEnglish. 34, 634-643.

Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “coversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652.

Carson, J.G., & Nelson, G.L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17-30.

DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S.W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic

foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research. 58, 119-149.

Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P (1989). Sharing and responding. New York: Random House.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of fwelfh graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composirion and Communication, 32,

401-414.

Fanselow, J. (1987). Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in language teaching. New York: Longman.

Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Gere, A.R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory. and implicarions. Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois University Press.

Nelson, G.L., & Murphy, J.M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, I, 171-194.

Nelson, G.L., & Murphy, J.M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.

Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic.

Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66-85.

Zamel, V (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.

Page 14: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

270 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

APPENDIX A

Draft written by Peer Review Sheet 1

Review written by

Date Composition #.

Your purpose in answering these questions is to provide an honest and helpful response to your partner’s or group member’s draft. You should also suggest ways to make his/her writing better. Before beginning your review, be sure to read the composition carefully. After that, respond to the following questions. Be specific. Be constructive.

1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

What do you like the best about the composition? Choose the most interesting idea and explain why. In your own words, state the focus/thesis/topic of the writing. What part(s) should be developed more? Mark these with the letter D. Or write the number of the paragraph here. Explain why you think this should be developed more and make some suggestions. What part(s) are confusing? Mark these with a letter C. Or write the number of the paragraph here. Explain why you think this is confusing and make some suggestions for improvement. Write a short, specific letter to the writer about how his/her writing can be improved.

Page 15: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups

APPENDIX B

271

Sample 1 Alexander:

Lilla: Alexander:

Lilla: Senayet:

Alexander: Satoko:

Alexander: Lilla:

Alexander: Lilla:

Transcripts From Group Discussions

Group 1

(is reading his paper. . ) This is my life in America. I am a student here twice. First of all I have to study.. . . (interrupting) I am a student for two reasons, here. What? I am a student for two reasons, here not twice. Yeah, two reasons. Just a second. This is my proposal. O.K.? Take a notes. (laughs) I think it’s I’m a student here twice because not for two reasons. O.K. read it. I’m terrible extremely sorry for you. (Everyone laughing) (To Lilla) Have you been a teacher? I’m not one.

Alexander finishes his paper and Lilla comes back to her point about “twice.”

Alexander: Satoko:

Lilla: Alexander:

Lilla: Satoko:

Sample 2 Lilla:

Alexander: Lilla:

Alexander: Lilla:

Alexander: Satoko:

Alexander: Satoko:

Alexander:

Lilla: Satoko:

Students two times, twice. Twice. In two ways. O.K. Or something like that. Well, just put a question mark on it and then come back to it.

And the other one is, there was another sentence where the problem is solved by 80 percent something and male. Uh-huh. I would like to hear that again because I think there is something a little funny. Uh-huh. Somewhere in the middle. Uh . . . (unintelligible) I can’t believe. (Everyone laughs) Did you see before? No. The U.S. where 80 percent problems solved by foreign male. So I’d like to say that. Male? What do you mean male?

Page 16: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

272 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

Alexander: Lilla:

Senayet: Satoko:

Senayet: Alexander:

Lilla: Satoko:

Lilla: Satoko:

Alexander: Satoko:

Lilla:

Alexander: Do you have X-ray vision?

Sample 3 Satoko:

Lilla: Satoko:

Lilla: Satoko:

Lilla: Satoko:

Sample 1 Shailini:

Karen:

lbshar:

Karen:

Sample 2 Nima:

Karen: Nima:

Karen: Nima:

Mail, I mean the post, postage, postmail, Then it’s not written on that way it’s mail, M-A-I-L. Mail. Mail. Yeah, that M-A-I-L. O.K., but it sounds the same. (laughs) But, I knew that you wrote. Male. (laughs) Wait a minute, (laughs) And male also, O.K. the mail also. No. (Everyone laughs) I couldn’t understand you know, and I, and I just was that problem, the problem.

I know that my unspoken English skill which I had learned in six-years compulsory education was destroyed completely before the fresh English. . . To abroad. To abroad, this time I went in the, I ahhh, hmmm, This time I went to India with my friend, Yoshiko, who used to be my private teacher when I was in high school. My spoken English didn’t improved. Improved. I’m sorry. Improved. My, I am sorry. My spoken English didn’t improve much more than I had expected.

Group 2

(to Karen) Are you going to change your topic? (is talking to Shailini, but is not discernable. Karen reads what she has written.) So, are you going to write that down?

That’s what I wrote and I want to change another one. I don’t want to write it. I don’t like it.

It’s a long one, I don’t feel like, I (player clicks off). Actually, mine has got no title right now, but I’ll just read it what I wrote down. That way we’ll give you a title. O.K. (laughs) As the saying goes life is not a bed of roses. This is true in our everyday life. Both rich and poor has to go through the same phase sometime in their uh,

Page 17: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 273

Shailini:

Tushar: Shailini:

Nima: Shailini:

lhshar: Nima:

Shailini: Nima:

Shailini: Nima:

Shailini: ‘lhshar:

Nima: ‘Ihshar: Nima:

Tushar: Nima:

‘Ihshar: Nima:

lhshar: Karen: Nima: Karen: Nima: Karen: Nima: Karen: Nima: Nima:

‘Rtshar: Nima:

llrshar:

lifetime. (Nima continues to read this essay aloud) Like a healthy competi- tion, occasional jealously between me and my brother, uh, will bring a better result. Competition, and hard work and hard (unintelligible). Can you just make up a small sentence and put it in the first paragraph that will tell about the rest of the composition? Oh, yes. Oh, yes, I agree with that. (in background) That’s what I’m trying to say. What? Yeah. . . . You know what I’m saying? You mean, the competition is (unintelligible). That’s why I wrote this one, “Life is not a bed of roses.” That’s about competition. You think they’ll understand? They should understand this is a proverb saying like, “It’s not easy. . . ” Is this the same thing? . . . unless you compete with each other or work harder. That’s true. So you mean competition is a main goal for your, I mean the main motivation for your learning. Yeah. Like, so you can make this sentence in the beginning. Yeah but, here, “Life is not a bed of roses.” O.K. I mean life is.. . “Life is not a bed of roses” is a proverb saying like if you don’t work hard.. Ohhh... . . . you won’t get anything in you life. It’s not like. . . Hmmm . . . It’s more historical in personal then (group discussion continues) There was an error here like uh . . . But, there are so many errors. Yeah, those riches and a poors I think. No, both rich and poor, No? has togo... Rich and poor? That’s right! Richer. I cannot write both richer and poorer. See, I’m giving this example for the rich and the poor (a bit exasperated) like even if you’re rich or even if you’re poor it’s “life is not a bed of roses.” Both have to go through the same phase. So you’re taking this as a phase? Right? Yeah. O.K. Every item has got to be organizing the idea, that’s the main thing so it’s hard to understand.

Page 18: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

274 U. Connor and K. Asenavage

APPENDIX C

Analysis of Revision

TABLE C-l Number of Revisions by Group 1 by Type and Source

Source

Surface Revision

Meaning Formal Preserving

Text-Based Revision

Micro Macro Source Total

Group Other Type Total

Group Teacher Other Type Total

Draft 2 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 133%) 0 (0%) 3 (4%)

16 (21%) 37 (47%) 8 (10%) 17 (22%) 78 (96%) 16 (20%) 39 (46%) 3 (11%) 17 (21%) 81 (100%)

Draft 3 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 0 (0%) 7 (6%)

13 m%1 20 Ml%) 7 (75%) 6 (13%) 46 (37%) 5 (7%) 23 (33%) 23 (33%) 18 (26%) 69 (57%)

18 (15%) 45 (37%) 35 (29%) 24 (19%) 122 (100%)

TABLE C-2 Number of Revisions by Group 2 by Type and Source

Source

Surface Revision

Meaning Formal Preserving

Text-Based Revision

Micro Macro Source Total

Group Other Type Total

Group Teacher Other Type Total

Draft 2 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (45%) 9 (12%) 3 (4%) 25 (36%) 4 (6%) 37 (54%) 69 (88%) 3 (4%) 27 (35%) 7 (9%) 41 (52%) 78 (100%)

Draft 3 0 (0%) 0 (OYO) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%)

37 (45%) 30 (37%) 11 (13%) 4 (5%) 82 (35%) 25 (17%) 41 (27%) 46 (31%) 37 (27%) 149 (64%) 62 (27%) 71 (31%) 68 (25%) 41 (17%) 232 (100%)

Page 19: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

Peer Response Groups 275

TABLE C-3 Number of Revisions by Student in Group 1

Surface Revision Text-Based Revision

Meaning Student Source Formal Preserving Micro Macro Source Total

Alexander Group Other

Lilla Group Other

Satoko Group Other

Senayet Group Other

Alexander Group Teacher Other

Lilla Group Teacher Other

Satoko Group Teacher Other

Senayet Group Teacher

1 (100%) 13 (32%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 1 (12%)

0 (0%) 2 (7%)

0 (0%) 3 (33%) 2 (33%)

0 (0%) 5 (33%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 5 (22.5%)

Draft 2 0 (0%)

27 (66%)

0 (0%) 1 (100%)

1 (50%) 3 (38%)

0 (0%) 6 (21%)

Draft 3 0 (0%) 5 (56%) 3 (50%)

0 (0%) 8 (53%) 0 (0%)

2 (29%) 0 (O%j

18 (35%)

0 (0%) 7 (32%)

0 (0%) 1 (2%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1 150%) 4 (50%)

0 (0%) 3 (11%)

0 (0%) 1 (11%) 1 (19%)

0 (0%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%)

5 (71%) 0 (0%)

16 (31%)

0 (0%) 5 (22.5%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 17 (61%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

17 (33%)

0 (0%) 5 (22.5%)

1 (4%) 41 (96%)

0 (0%) 1 (100%)

2 (20%) 8 (80%)

0 (0%) 28 (100%)

0 (0%) 9 (60%) 6 (40%)

0 (0%) 15 (100%)

0 (0%)

7 (12%) 0 (0%)

51 (88%)

0 (0%) 22 (65%)

Other 3 (25%) 2 117%) 6 (50%) 1 (8%) 12 (35%)

Page 20: Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?

276 U. Connor and K. Asenawage

TABLE C-4 Number of Revisions bv Student in Grouo 2

Surface Revision Text-Based Revision

Meaning Student Source Formal Preserving Micro Macro Source Total

Tushar

Shailini

Nima

Karen

Tushar

Shailini

Nima

Karen

Group 0 (0%) Other 0 (0%)

Group 0 (0%) Other 3 (9%)

Group 0 (0%) Other 0 (0%)

Group 0 (0%) Other 0 (0%)

Group 0 (0%) Teacher 12 (39%) Other 11 (28%)

Group 0 (0%) Teacher 2 (25%) Other 4 (13%)

Group 0 (0%) Teacher 15 (45%) Other 6 (50%)

Group 0 (0%) Teacher 8 (67%) Other 4 (6%)

Draft 2 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 20 (61%)

2 (22%) 5 (29%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Draft 3 0 (0%)

12 (39%) 10 (26%)

0 (0%) 4 (50%) 14 (45%)

0 (0%) 13 (42%) 3 (25%)

0 (0%) 1 (8%)

14 (21%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 3 (9%)

3 (33%) 1 (6%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 6 (19%) 11 (28%)

1 (100%) 1 (12.5%) 8 (26%)

0 (0%) 2 (7%) 2 (17%)

0 (0%) 2 (17%) 25 (37%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 7 (21%)

4 (45%) 11 (65%)

0 (0%) 19 (100%)

0 (0%) 1 (3%)

7 (18%)

0 (0%) 1 (12.5%) 5 (16%)

0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (8%)

0 (0%) 1 (8%)

24 (36%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 33 (100%)

9 (35%) 17 (65%)

0 (0%) 19 (100%)

0 (0%) 31 (44%) 39 (56%)

1 (3%) 8 (20%) 31 (77%)

0 (0%) 31 (72%) 12 (28%)

0 (0%) 12 (15%) 67 (85%)