Search

Prohibiting or Promoting Learning: An Exploration of Peer Feedback in Collaborative Academic Writing

Author(s)

Axian Huang

Affiliation(s)

Xiamen University, Tan Kah Kee College, Zhangzhou, Guangdong, China

Abstract

Past literature on peer feedback has identified a number of learning benefits to students (higher confidence, greater autonomy, better understanding, etc.), yet few have explored whether and how peer feedback prohibits learning. To close this gap, this study recorded 12 students' classroom feedback sessions over seven weeks when they collaboratively wrote a book review. The text-talk analysis revealed three feedback patterns: empathy, compromise and disapproval. The subsequent interview showed that while the students gained higher sensitivity to review writing, they complained about the excessive cognitive load of the activity and even doubted peer feedback usefulness. Based on those findings, the paper suggested a revised design on peer feedback sessions in academic courses.

Keywords

Peer Feedback; Learning Benefits; Book Review Writing; Collaborative Writing

References

[1]Van Gennip, N.A. E.; Segers, M. S. R., &Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4):280-290. [2]Boud, D., & R. Soler.2016. “Sustainable Assessment Revisited.” Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3): 400-413. doi:10. 1080/02602938. 2015. 1018133. [3]Van Popta, E., M. Kral, G. Camp, R.L. Martens (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34. [4]Ge, S., & Er, N. (2005). An online support system to scaffold real-world problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(3): 139-157. https://doi. org/10. 1080/10494820500382893. [5]Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1:3-31. [6]Patchan & Shunn (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instruction Science, 43, 591–614. DOI10. 1007/s11251-015-9353-x. [7]Strijbos, J.W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269. [8]Darvin. R and Norton. B (2019). Collaborative Writing, Academic Socialization, and the Negotiation of Identity. In P. Habibie and K. Hyland (eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_6 [9]Paré, A. (2010). Slow the presses: Concerns about premature publication. In C. Aitchison, B. Kamler, & A. Lee (Eds.), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond (pp. 83–101). New York, NY: Routledge. [10]Habibie, P. & Hyland. K. (2019). Introduction: the risks and rewards of scholarly publishing. In P. Habibie and K. Hyland (eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_6. [11]Wingate, U. 2019. “Can You Talk Me through Your Argument’? Features of Dialogic Interaction in Academic Writing Tutorials.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38: 25–35. doi:10. 1016/j.jeap.2019.01.001. [12]Su, Wei. (2019). Interpreting quality as evaluated by peer students, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13:2, 177-189. DOI: 10. 1080/1750399X. 2018. 1564192 [13]Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [14]Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25-42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.002. [15]Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1. [16]Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4): 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781. 1994. tb02064. x. [17]Arnold, N., Ducate, L., &Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision process in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431-448. [18]Li, M., & Zhu, Wei. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2): 96-120. [19]Altinmakas, D., &Bayyurt, Y. (2019). An exploratory study on factors influencing undergraduate students' academic writing practices in Turkey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 88-103. [20]Mochizuki, N. (2019). The lived experience of thesis writers in group writing conferences: The quest for “perfect” and “critical”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43:36-45. [21]Basturkmen, H. (2003). So what happens when the tutor walks in? Some observations on interaction in a university discussion group with and without the tutor. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2: 21–33. [22]Crosthwaite, P., Simon Boynton, Sam Cole III. (2017). Exploring rater conceptions of academic stance and engagement during group tutorial discussion assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28:1-13. [23]Topping, K. J., Dehkinet, R., Blanch, S., Corcelles, M., & Duran, D. (2013). Paradoxical effects of feedback in international online reciprocal peer tutoring. Computers & Education, 61, 225–231. [24]Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007 /978-981-10-3924-916. [25]Zou, M., & Kong, D. (2017). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Book review. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 35(4), 385-387. [26]Sarkar, T., & Gu, X. (2018). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Tesol quarterly, 52(2):481-483. [27]Wu, X. (2018). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts, book review. System, 76, 243-244. [28]Li, Y.Y, Margaret Cargill, Xin Gao, Xiaoqing Wang, Patrick O'Connor. (2019). A scientist in interdisciplinary team-teaching in an English for research Publication Purposes classroom: Beyond a “cameo role”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40: 129-140. [29]Mochizuki, N. (2017). Contingent Needs Analysis for Task Implementation: An Activity Systems. Tesol Quarterly, 51(3):607-631. [30]Sealey, A. (2015). Book review and forum contributions in applied linguistics-continuity and change. Applied Linguistics, 36(4): 478–487. [31]Fyfe, E.R., Decaro, M.S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). When feedback is cognitively-demanding: The importance of working memory capacity. Instructional Science, 43, 73–91. [32]Carless, David. (2019) Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44:5, 705-714, DOI:10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108. [33]Mur-Dueñas, Pilar. (2019). The Experience of a NNES Outer Circle Novice Scholar in Scholarly Publication. In P. Habibie and K. Hyland (eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_6.