Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions, and Content
Abstract
This study analyzes the interaction during peer response as it occurs in an authentic writing class. Transcripts of 27 response groups are analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to identify reader stances and determine the characteristics of these stances. We identified four categories of reader stances—authoritative, interpretive, probing, and collaborative. We then analyzed the language functions and topics discussed during the response sessions. This analysis reveals interesting differences across the four stances in five function categories (Summarize Essay, Express Intention, Give Suggestion, Give Opinion, and Give Information) and in three content categories (Writing Process, Ideas, and Audience and Purpose). We conclude that interactive peer response offers benefits to the students. However, in the probing and collaborative stances, the writer is encouraged to articulate the intended meaning of the text, thereby clarifying, expanding, and shaping meaning. These two stances therefore engage students in a fuller understanding of the writing process.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Structuring the writing class and the type of feedback given to learners affects learners' approach to writing process, feedback, and revisions.
“Researchers argue that structuring the writing class and the type of feedback given to learners will undoubtedly affect learners' approach to writing process, feedback, and revisions (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996;Lockhart & Ng, 1995).”
From A comparative study of the effect of teacher’s group and individual feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ learning of speech acts in apology letter writing (2020) · cites this paper as Lockhart & Ng, 1995
Cites
Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”
Bruffee, K. A. (1984) · College English · doi:10.2307/376924 · Cited by 1,016 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections
Storch, N. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 · Cited by 1,052 · see citing works
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
The influence of teacher commentary on student revision
Ferris, D. R. (1997) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588049 · Cited by 618 · see citing works
The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing
Paulus, T. M. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80117-9 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality
Min, H.-T. (2006) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · Cited by 482 · see citing works
ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90010-8 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education
van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course designs
van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500262346 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
The Effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: a meta-analysis.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x · Cited by 175 · see citing works
An inventory of peer assessment diversity
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903221444 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Strijbos, J.-W., Ochoa, T. A., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009) · Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-Based Education · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-392-0.ch018 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review
Crossman, J. M., & Kite, S. L. (2012) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787412452980 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners :
Memari Hanjani, A. (2019) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes.331771 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Pourmousavi, Z., & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00088-w · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lockhart, C., & Ng, P.
- Affiliations
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Lockhart, Charles
- ORCID
- Ng, Peggy
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 605-651
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W1964310003
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 33.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Hong Kong Education Bibliographic Database (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- peer feedback, ESL writing, writing process, language functions, collaborative writing, 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
