Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe the negotiations that occur during ESL students' peer reviews and the ways these negotiations shape students' revision activities. Twelve advanced ESL learners enrolled in a writing course participated in peer reviews. Audiotaped transcripts of the peer reviews and the students' first and revised drafts were analyzed, and postinterviews were conducted. During these peer reviews, students asked questions, offered explanations, gave suggestions, restated what their peers had written or said, and corrected grammar mistakes. Reviewers generated most types of negotiations. Moreover, certain patterns of negotiations occurred more frequently in peer dyads from different fields of study than in dyads from the same field. Although students used their peers' comments to revise their essays, they incorporated those comments in their revisions selectively, deciding for themselves what to revise in their own texts. Finally, the postinterviews supported students' rationale for their revision activities and revealed that overall they found peer reviews useful. The findings of this study support the need to include peer reviews in L2 writing instruction and underscore their value in providing feedback on students' essays.
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?
A great deal of research on feedback has focused on error correction and limited itself to particular modes of delivery.
“A great deal of this research, however, has focused on error correction and limited itself to particular modes of delivery, examining the effectiveness of teacher written feedback (Ferris, 1997), oral conferencing (Weissberg, 2006), peer feedback (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994) or machine marking (Warschauer & Ware, 2006).”
From Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018) · cites this paper as Mendonca & Johnson, 1994
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 446
- Authors
- Mendonça, C. O., Johnson, K. E., & Mendonca, C. O.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- ORCID
- Johnson, Karen E.
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 745
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2004361760
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 47.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- 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
- peer review, peer feedback, ESL writing, second language writing, negotiation of meaning, peer dyads, field of study, grammatical error correction, L2 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
