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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From 'Sorry, I don't good English': Japanese L2 students' written peer feedback in the face-to-face and anonymous review modes (2023) · cites this paper as Kim (2019)
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.”
From 'Sorry, I don't good English': Japanese L2 students' written peer feedback in the face-to-face and anonymous review modes (2023) · cites this paper as Kim (2019)
Citations
Cites
Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9 · Cited by 648
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Bauman, 1994, In Search of the Japanese Spirit in Talent Education: A Research Essay
- 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
- Cheng, 2000, ‘Asian students’ reticence revisited’, System, 28, 435, 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00015-4 · DOI
- Coomber, 2010, ‘The effect of anonymity in peer review’
- Fraser, 2010, ‘Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging’, 10.1163/9789004253247_003 · DOI
- Grainger, 2005, Creativity and Writing: Developing Voice and Verve in the Classroom, 10.4324/9780203391075 · DOI
- Hansen, 2005, ‘Guiding principles for effective peer response’, ELT Journal, 59, 31, 10.1093/elt/cci004 · DOI
- Hyland, 2000, ‘ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students’, Language Teaching Research, 4, 33, 10.1177/136216880000400103 · DOI · Paper page
- Jonassen, 1999, ‘Designing constructivist learning environments’
- 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
- Nelson, 2006, ‘Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture”’, 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.005 · DOI
- Rollinson, 2005, ‘Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class’, ELT Journal, 59, 23, 10.1093/elt/cci003 · DOI · Paper page
- Tardy, 2006, ‘Appropriation, ownership, and agency: negotiating teacher feedback in academic settings’, 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.006 · DOI
- 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
Japanese L2 learners’ translanguaging practice in written peer feedback
Kim, S., & Chang, C.-H. (2022) · International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism · doi:10.1080/13670050.2020.1760201 · Cited by 25
Self-citationKim, S. (2023) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2022.2073983 · Cited by 7
Self-citationKim, S. (2023) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.02 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, S.
- Corresponding author
- Kim, Sugene
- ORCID
- Kim, Sugene
- Venue
- ELT Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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