L2 writers’ perspectives on face-to-face and anonymous peer review: Voices from China
Open accessAbstract
To validate a recent study conducted in the Japanese context that contradicted the previously held view that Asian students are culturally predisposed to be reluctant peer reviewers, this study examined Chinese EFL learners’ experiences with and perspectives on peer review in a writing classroom. Fifty-seven college students were asked to perform peer review in face-to-face and anonymous modes to examine whether anonymising the process encourages them to offer more constructive criticism. Data were collected from a Likert-based survey, interviews, and the instructor’s field notes. Statistical analysis of the survey data only partially supported the findings of the study replicated, indicating Chinese students’ preference for both face-to-face and anonymous review modes. Although most of the participants exhibited resistance to peer review during the initial stage, they began to appreciate the benefits of the activity, particularly the verbal discussion component of the face-to-face mode, while some of them refused to give negative feedback on their peers’ work. Regardless of the peer-review mode, the participants remained overly conscious of their feedback accuracy and continued to seek confirmation and oversight from an authority figure (the teacher) rather than taking initiative
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?
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 and Lan (2021)
Cites
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
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Copious studies have supported its benefits, reporting that engaging students in peer review encourages cooperative learning (Tsui & Ng, 2000) and improves both content- and language-related aspects of student writing (Berg, 1999).”
BackgroundChinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(96)90012-0 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
Peer assessment: judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather than marks
Davies, P. (2006) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703290500467566 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kim, S. (2023) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.02 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kim, S., & Lan, Y.
- Affiliations
- Nagoya University of Commerce and Business (JP)
- Shenzhen University (CN)
- Venue
- Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras
- Published
- 2021-01-31
- Issue
- 35
- Pages
- 149-164
- ISSN
- 1697-7467 (ISSN-L)
- 2695-8244
- OpenAlex
- W3128433676
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 4.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- e-rph (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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
- peer review, anonymous peer review, EFL writing, Chinese university students, feedback accuracy, 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
