Cited by 18EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Japanese student writers’ perspectives on anonymous peer review

Kim, Sugene·2019·ELT Journal

Abstract

This article explores Japanese EFL learners’ perceptions of face-to-face vs. anonymous peer review in a writing classroom. Albeit few in number, some studies claim that Asian students exhibit difficulty in providing negative feedback because they tend to be hesitant for cultural reasons to criticize others’ work. To verify and extend such observations, this study collected data from 64 Japanese college students regarding their experiences and perspectives after they performed peer review in both conditions. Analysis of the data collected through a survey and semi-structured interviews did not support the previously held views that learners from non-Western cultural backgrounds are predisposed to be reluctant peer reviewers. Further, the findings indicated that Japanese EFL learners’ preference for a specific peer-review mode interacts closely with various factors. Possible pedagogical implications are discussed in relation to ways to better implement peer-review sessions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/elt/ccy061

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approximately 65% more comments were provided in the anonymous mode than in the face-to-face mode.

    “The fact that approximately 65% more comments were provided in the anonymous mode corroborates Kim (2019), who reported L2 student interviewees' complaint that 'it was burdensome to have to write down every single word [during the anonymous peer review]' (p. 301).”
  • The observation of more requests for clarification in anonymous mode supports prior studies in which L2 learners identified the absence of direct interaction with peer writers as a significant drawback of anonymous peer review.

    “This observation supports Coomber and Silver (2010), Kim (2019), and Kim and Lan (2021), in all of which L2 learners identified the absence of direct interaction with peer writers as a significant drawback of anonymous peer review.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bauman, 1994, In Search of the Japanese Spirit in Talent Education: A Research Essay
  2. Berg, 1999, ‘The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215, 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5 · DOI
  3. Cheng, 2000, ‘Asian students’ reticence revisited’, System, 28, 435, 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00015-4 · DOI
  4. Coomber, 2010, ‘The effect of anonymity in peer review’
  5. Fraser, 2010, ‘Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging’, 10.1163/9789004253247_003 · DOI
  6. Grainger, 2005, Creativity and Writing: Developing Voice and Verve in the Classroom, 10.4324/9780203391075 · DOI
  7. Hansen, 2005, ‘Guiding principles for effective peer response’, ELT Journal, 59, 31, 10.1093/elt/cci004 · DOI
  8. Hyland, 2000, ‘ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students’, Language Teaching Research, 4, 33, 10.1177/136216880000400103 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Jonassen, 1999, ‘Designing constructivist learning environments’
  10. Mangelsdorf, 1992, ‘Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?’, ELT Journal, 46, 274, 10.1093/elt/46.3.274 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Nelson, 2006, ‘Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture”’, 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.005 · DOI
  12. Rollinson, 2005, ‘Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class’, ELT Journal, 59, 23, 10.1093/elt/cci003 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Tardy, 2006, ‘Appropriation, ownership, and agency: negotiating teacher feedback in academic settings’, 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.006 · DOI
  14. Villamil, 2006, ‘Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback’, 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kim, S.
Corresponding author
Kim, Sugene
Venue
ELT Journal
Published
2019-02-13
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
296-305
ISSN
  • 0951-0893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4526
OpenAlex
W2912504093
Cited by
18
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ELT Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (18K00854)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
anonymous peer review, EFL learners, Japanese university students, peer feedback, learner perceptions, writing instruction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review