Training student writers in conducting peer feedback in L2 writing: A meaning-making perspective
-
Xiaodong Zhang
Xiaodong Zhang, Assistant Professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, China. He holds a PhD degree in Linguistics (University of Georgia, U.S.A). His research interests include teacher education, second language writing and systemic functional linguistics. His work has appeared in international journals, such as
Linguistics and Education ,Asian Pacific Education Researcher ,International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Croatian Journal of Education .Shulin Yu, PhD, Assistant Professor at Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China. His research interests include second language writing and second language education. His publications have appeared in
Assessing Writing ,Language Teaching Research ,Language Teaching, TESOL Quarterly ,Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, System, Studies in Higher Education, Educational Research Review, andTeaching in Higher Education .
Abstract
This study investigates how L2 (second language) student writers responded to SFL (systemic functional linguistics)-based training that was designed to assist them in harnessing meaning-making knowledge to evaluate their classmates’ essays. Conducted in a Chinese college expository writing course and based on qualitative analyses of three students’ interviews, their written feedback, as well as their reflections over one semester, the study shows that the students’ adjustment to the training occurred in a dynamic and interrelated manner. That is, along with constant teacher support and their increased knowledge gained from SFL-based training, the students transcended the limitations of their prior knowledge, which merely entailed giving feedback at the level of structural accuracy in L2 writing. They were able to gradually embrace meaning-making knowledge, although not yet fully developed. With this knowledge, they evaluated their classmates’ essays to determine if the writing content fitted the demands of valued academic compositions, such as whether and how the grammar and vocabulary were used correctly in context.
Funding statement: The project is funded by a grant from National Social Science Foundation of China (17CYY019)
About the authors
Xiaodong Zhang, Assistant Professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, China. He holds a PhD degree in Linguistics (University of Georgia, U.S.A). His research interests include teacher education, second language writing and systemic functional linguistics. His work has appeared in international journals, such as Linguistics and Education, Asian Pacific Education Researcher, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Croatian Journal of Education.
Shulin Yu, PhD, Assistant Professor at Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China. His research interests include second language writing and second language education. His publications have appeared in Assessing Writing, Language Teaching Research, Language Teaching, TESOL Quarterly, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, System, Studies in Higher Education, Educational Research Review, and Teaching in Higher Education.
-
Claim: The authors claim that there is no conflict of interests.
Appendix A: Rubric for feedback giving
| Scope of feedback giving | Checklist for linguistic realization | Reasons or reflections on feedback giving (samples) |
|---|---|---|
| Ideational meaning | Does the essay have an appropriate logic relationship with an explicit use of logical connectors (including the relationship between thesis and sub-claims)? Does the essay use topic (or sub-topic)–specific nouns as participants? Does the essay appropriately use verbs as process? Is the thesis statement appropriate to the overall content (whether it is too narrow or broad?) |
Lan wrote: “inappropriate logic” and commented: “please show me the logic relationship between your background information (the phenomenon that temperature of the earth is rising) and your thesis (the negative effects of global warming). Please use appropriate logic connectors between the two parts of information”. When revisiting one of her classmates’ first essay following SFL-based training, Yan commented that: “I would like to use ‘inappropriate topic-specific nouns’ to label this part where one paragraph of the reviewed essay held coherence is one key feature of academic writing as its topic sentence but the rest part talked about grammatical complexity of academic writing.” |
| Interpersonal meaning | Does the essay overuse question-type sentences? Does the essay appropriately use reporting verbs in relation to evidence? Does the essay overuse adjectives showing explicit authorial emotions? Does the essay appropriately use modal verbs? Does the essay appropriately use external sources? Does the essay appropriately use adjectives or adverbs conveying semantic load? |
When evaluating one classmates’ third essay on college and high school life, Wan wrote “check your reporting verb”. She commented: “the research study you used was conducted in a top-ranking university, but claimed that ‘this shows that Chinese students feel more difficulty in adjusting to college life’. You may lower the semantic load by saying ‘some Chinese students” or you could use suggest, instead of show.” Yin in reflection commented on her classmates’ writing: “she used supervise not assist when talking about the role of teachers and parents during the high school life in China. This word somehow indicates her dissatisfaction with the learning mode in Chinese high school”. |
| Textual meaning | Does the essay explicitly or appropriately use cohesive devices? Could theme-rheme patterns be improved? |
Lan wrote “inappropriate use of cohesive devices” on one classmate’s essay introduction.She also commented as follows: “This part is not smooth. You abruptly talk about global warming’s effect as your thesis. But before that you spend too much time on the rising temperature of the earth … but I do not see how the themes of rising temperature and global warming are related unless you define global warming and talk about it.” |
| Grammar | Does the essay have a complete structure (including the appropriate use of tense, punctuation marks, verbs, adverbial clauses) | Students corrected verb tense, and punctuation marks (e. g. the misuse of commas between two independent clauses). |
Appendix B: Sample interview questions
Do you have peer feedback experience?
How did you provide feedback for your classmates?
How do you understand SFL?
What difficulties and challenges do you have with understanding and applying SFL in your own writing?
How do you think of the constructs of SFL in relation to your feedback giving practices?
References
Bacon, S. M. C. & M. D. Finnemann. 1992. Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about language learning and authentic oral and written input. Language Learning 42. 471–495.10.19173/irrodl.v19i2.3479Search in Google Scholar
Carless, D. & D. Boud. 2018. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43(8). 1315–1325.10.1007/s40299-015-0262-1Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20. 37–46.10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004Search in Google Scholar
Gebhard, M. & R. Harman. 2011. Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing 20. 45–55.10.1017/S0261444816000161Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. Matthiessen. 2013. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01041.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. 1997. Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland Chinese students. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(3). 223–244.10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354Search in Google Scholar
Lam, R. 2010. A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal 27(2). 114.10.1177/001316446002000104Search in Google Scholar
Lee, I., P. Mak & A. Burns. 2016. EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research 20(2). 248–269.10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.007Search in Google Scholar
Li, J. & M. Li. 2018. Turnitin and peer review in ESL academic writing classrooms. Language Learning & Technology 22(1). 27–41.10.4324/9780203431269Search in Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, M. 2012. Why school English needs a ‘good enough’ grammatics (and not more grammar). Changing English 19(2). 179–194.10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90013-8Search in Google Scholar
Marshall, C. & G. Rossman. 2015. Designing qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & P. R. White. 2003. The language of evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1177/1362168815581007Search in Google Scholar
Min, H. T. 2005. Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System 33(2). 293–308.10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003Search in Google Scholar
Min, H. T. 2016. Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing 31. 43–57.10.1080/1358684X.2012.680760Search in Google Scholar
Nicol, D., A. Thomson & C. Breslin. 2014. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39(1). 102–122.10.1080/02602938.2013.795518Search in Google Scholar
O’Hallaron, C. & M. Schleppegrell. 2016. “Voice” in children’s science arguments: Aligning assessment criteria with genre and discipline. Assessing Writing 30. 63–73.10.1016/j.asw.2016.06.004Search in Google Scholar
Rahimi, M. 2013. Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research 17(1). 67–89.10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003Search in Google Scholar
Rose, D. & J. R. Martin. 2012. Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.004Search in Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. 2004. The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.1080/02602938.2013.795518Search in Google Scholar
To, J. & D. Carless. 2015. Making productive use of exemplars: Peer discussion and teacher guidance for positive transfer of strategies. Journal of Further and Higher Education 40(6). 1–19.10.1016/j.asw.2016.06.004Search in Google Scholar
Yin, R. 2003. Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.1177/1362168812459151Search in Google Scholar
Yu, S. 2019. Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from Master’s students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing 40. 42–52.10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004Search in Google Scholar
Yu, S. & I. Lee. 2016. Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching 49(4). 461–493.10.1017/S0261444816000161Search in Google Scholar
Yu, S. I. Lee & P. Mak. 2016. Revisiting Chinese cultural issues in peer feedback in EFL writing: Insights from a multiple case study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 25(2). 295–304.10.1007/s40299-015-0262-1Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, X. 2018. Connecting OER with mandatory textbooks in an EFL classroom: A language theory–based material adoption. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 19(2). 89–110.10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014317Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, H. 2018. Exploring tertiary English as a foreign language writing tutors’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43(7). 1133–1145.10.1080/02602938.2018.1434610Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Training student writers in conducting peer feedback in L2 writing: A meaning-making perspective
- Assessing the use of multiple-choice translation items in English proficiency tests: The case of the national English proficiency test in Turkey
- Translingual negotiation strategies in CMC contexts: English-medium communication in online marketplaces
- Alignment effect in the continuation task of Chinese low-intermediate English learners
- Racializing the problem of and solution to foreign accent in business
- Migrant women, work, and investment in language learning: Two success stories
- Student motivation in Dutch secondary school EFL literature lessons
- Developing 21st century skills for the first language classroom: Investigating the relationship between Chinese primary students’ oral interaction strategy use and their group discussion performance
- How memories of study abroad experience are contextualized in the language classroom
- Spanish L1 EFL learners’ recognition knowledge of English academic vocabulary: The role of cognateness, word frequency and length
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Training student writers in conducting peer feedback in L2 writing: A meaning-making perspective
- Assessing the use of multiple-choice translation items in English proficiency tests: The case of the national English proficiency test in Turkey
- Translingual negotiation strategies in CMC contexts: English-medium communication in online marketplaces
- Alignment effect in the continuation task of Chinese low-intermediate English learners
- Racializing the problem of and solution to foreign accent in business
- Migrant women, work, and investment in language learning: Two success stories
- Student motivation in Dutch secondary school EFL literature lessons
- Developing 21st century skills for the first language classroom: Investigating the relationship between Chinese primary students’ oral interaction strategy use and their group discussion performance
- How memories of study abroad experience are contextualized in the language classroom
- Spanish L1 EFL learners’ recognition knowledge of English academic vocabulary: The role of cognateness, word frequency and length
